AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant-petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.12.2005 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.115/05, vide which the accused/non-petitioners No.2 and 3 have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 313, in the alternative under Section 313 / 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The main contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecutrix in this case was a minor, which fact has not been believed by the court inspite of the fact that the ration card Ex.P.17 was produced by PW-11, Budh Prakash, father of the prosecutrix. It is also contended that the court below has erred in acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 313 IPC of having caused miscarriage without woman's consent. It further contended that the accused had forced the prosecutrix to take medicine for terminating the pregnancy.
Counsel for the accused/non-petitioners has opposed the revision petition. Their contention is that the medical board was constituted to ascertain the age of the prosecutrix and the medical board has, after considering the radiological reports as well as physical appearance of the prosecutrix, given a report that the prosecutrix was above 19 years and below 20 years of age. It is also contended that PW-4 Dr.O.P.Meena and PW-5 Dr. Sudhir Sharma have deposed before the court by submitting Ex.P.3, wherein after considering the x-ray report, they have opined the radiological age of the prosecutrix to be above 19 years and below 20 years. Therefore, the court has rightly relied upon the medical evidence vis-a-vis the ration card, which did not depict the date and year of its issuance.
It is further contended by counsel for the accused/non-petitioners that PW-11, Budh Prakash, father of the prosecutrix, in his cross-examination, has admitted that the age of the prosecutrix was mentioned without there being any specific proof of her age. With regard to the offence under Section 313 IPC, it is contended that the trial court has rightly disbelieved the case of the prosecution that the accused/non-petitioners forced the prosecutrix to take medicine for terminating the pregnancy.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have also perused Ex.P.17.
Ex.P.17 has no endorsement with regard to the date and year of issuance. Further age of the prosecutrix mentioned herein was not mentioned by her father Budh Prakash on the basis of some proof. The age which was therefore, determined by the medical board constituted for this purpose is to be considered. The medical board has considered the age of the prosecutrix to be above 19 years and below 20 years. Therefore, the prosecutrix was a major at the time of the act.
In the present case, FIR has been lodged after a delay of at least six months and it is only when the fact of the prosecutrix being pregnant came to the notice of her parents that a case has been filed. There is no evidence whatsoever to the effect that the accused/non-petitioners forced the prosecutrix to take medicines for terminating the pregnancy.
In light of the above, the court below has not committed any error in acquitting the accused/non-petitioners.
The present revision petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.