Naresh Kumar vs State of H.P.

Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.

Petitioner is being tried for offences, under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly kidnapping a girl, with intent to force her to marry him, against her wishes and also raping her, after the alleged kidnapping. Trial has already commenced. Statements of the prosecutrix and her parents have been recorded.

According to the learned Counsel, age of the prosecutrix was more than 18 years, at the time when the incident took place and she has since married the Petitioner.

Date of birth of the Petitioner is recorded as 19th August, 1994, in the School record. That means she was not only below 18 years of age and, hence, her removal from her parents'' custody amounts to kidnapping, but was also below 16 years of age and as such unable to consent for sexual intercourse.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the prosecutrix, while in the witness-box, stated that she was born in the year 1992.

Even if it be assumed that the prosecutrix was born in the year 1992, she was not of 18 years of age in February, 2010, when the alleged incident of kidnapping took place. Moreover, though the prosecutrix, in the cross-examination, stated that she was born in the year 1992, at the same time, while getting her age recorded at the time of making statement in the Court on 24th September, 2010, she got her age recorded as 15 years and 6 months, meaning thereby that she was born not in the year 1992, but in the year 1994, as indicated in the School record and the Panchayat record.

In view of the abovestated position, the petition is dismissed.