Komal Chand vs State of U.P.& Anr.

J.C. Mishra, J.—This is a defectiverevision as it was filed beyond period of limitation by 27th days. The revisionist who had filed complaint is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 61199 passed by Special Judge (D.A. A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur acquitting the accused Subedar Singh for offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366,1. P.C.

The prosecution case is that Kumari Sunita, daughter of the revisionist was kidnapped by the accused while she had gone to attend the College along with her sister Kumkum. The complainant starlet'' making enquiries when she did not return. One Ram Dayal told him that he has seen Kumari Sunita going towards Motor stand on a Rickshaw along with the accused Subedar. Further enquiries revealed that she had taken garments, ornaments and cash worth Rs. 6000. To prove its case the prosecution examined Kumari Sunita who did not support the prosecution case. She stated that she was major and had gone on her own accord with the accused and had entered into marriage allowance. She was declared hostile. The complainant Komal Chand supported the prosecution case. He stated that on the date of the incident Sunita was aged about 17years two months and forty four days.

Kumari Sunita was examined by the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr. P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge referred to her statement that her date of birth was 11862. In view of her statement the learned Special Judge held that she was major on the date of the incident and, therefore, the accused could not be said to have committed offence punishable under Section 363,1.P.C. She stated that she was not prepared to marry an old person and, therefore, had of her own accord gone with the accused and both of them married. The learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced to the evidence of the informant and held that the prosecution could not prove that Kumari Sunita was kidnapped abducted under some pressure or on allurement to get her married. As she had willingly gone with the accused, he could not be said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 366, I.P.C. The finding in this regard does not suffer from any error.

The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that even it the girl was minor the accused could not be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 363, I.P.C. is not correct. However, as the complainant could not adduce convincing evidence regarding age of the prosecutrix. The acquittal for offence punishable under Section 363, I.P.C. appears to be justified.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and solitary and infirm evidence of the complainant I do not find it a fit case for interfering with the order of acquittal.

The revision is not fit for admission and, therefore, it is not necessary to consider the application for condonation of delay.

The revision is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.