9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 and 7 years on those counts respectively. Other Appellants stood convicted under Sections 366 r/w 109 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced for 3 years rigorous imprisonment. 2. FACTS: (A) The prosecution case reveals that on 11.2.1998 at 9.00 A.M., Murugan @ Settu (A.1) with an intention to marry the minor girl Shankari (PW.4), aged 14 years studying in 8th standard, kidnapped her from S.S.K.V. School, Kancheepuram, by stating that her mother, Parimala (PW.15) was seriously ill and had been admitted to hospital. Shankari (PW.4) took permission to leave the school from her teach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Police Station after receiving the information that A.1 and prosecutrix Shankari (PW.4) would appear before the court at Kancheepuram reached there, and made a written application before the Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram for sending A.1 and Shankari (PW.4) for medical examination. The application was accepted. (F) Dr. Parasakthi (PW.18) examined Shankari (PW.4) and issued a medical certificate, Ex.P-10 to the effect that she had been sexually assaulted. Dr. K. Gururaj (PW.20) examined A.1 on 26.3.1998 and issued certificate Exs.P-14 and P-15 to the effect that he was not impotent. He also examined Shankari (PW.4) and issued certificates including Ex.P-16 giving his opinion that she was about 18 years of age. (G) After completing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s she was in love with him and wanted to marry him and not under compulsion of any one else. A.2 and A.3 had played no role in their affair or marriage. All independent witnesses i.e. Smt. Logammal (PW.7); Rajeshwari (PW.9) and Vijayalakshmi (PW.12) turned hostile. Shankari (PW.4) was major as opined by Dr. K. Gururaj (PW.20) who issued certificate to the effect that she was about 18 years of age. The courts erred in placing reliance upon the birth certificate of Shankari (PW.4) either given by the Municipality or by the School on the basis of the School Register. In the birth certificate issued by the Municipality, the name of the prosecutrix was not mentioned. Neither M.P. Ekambaram (PW.1), father nor Parimala (PW.15), mother of the prose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.1998 at 9 A.M. and did not return home. I came to know that she is missing. II. Relevant part of the certificate of birth issued by the Department of Public Health, under Section 17 of the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, issued by the Commissioner, Kancheepuram Municipality reads as under: Name -.... Date of Birth - 30.3.1984 Date of Registration -5.4.1984 Sex - Female Registration No. - 140 Name of father - M.P. Ekambaram Name of Mother - Parimala III. The date of birth certificate issued by the Head Master, S.S.K.V. Higher Secondary School, Kancheepuram reads as under: Certified that E. Shankari D/o M.P. Ekambaram was a student of this school in Eighth Std. during 1997-98 and her date of birth as per our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of my father and mother. When my parents came to know about our affair they tortured me for 4 months. My lover told me that he was going to die by consuming `poison'. I insisted that if I live, I can live with him otherwise I will die. He did not take me out. I only took him out. I am requesting the police and my relatives to put us together, otherwise if they try to separate us, my parents and police would be responsible. Sd/- Shankari 9. It is evident from the aforesaid documents that prosecutrix Shankari (PW.4) had developed a love affair with A.1, but there is nothing on record on the basis of which she had written that her hospital age was 17 years. No reliance can be placed on such a letter in view of the certificates issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chandra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1982 SC 1057; and State of Bihar and Ors. v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh and Ors. AIR 1983 SC 684. 12. This Court in Madan Mohan Singh and Ors. v. Rajni Kant and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 2933, considered a large number of judgments including: Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and Ors. AIR 1965 SC 282; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1796; Updesh Kumar and Ors. v. Prithvi Singh and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 703; State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh AIR 2005 SC 1868; Vishnu @ Undrya v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2006 SC 508; Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) 8 SCC 714, and came to the conclusion that while considering such an issue and documents admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, the cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
