Ravinder alias Binder vs State (Chandigarh Administration)

S.S. Saron, J.—Learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted three affidavits dated 28.8.2010. One affidavit is that of Rattan Lal father of the appellant-applicant, one affidavit is a joint affidavit of Rattan Lal father of the appellant-applicant and Smt. Mukesh Kumari mother of the prosecutrix and the one affidavit is that of the prosecutrix herself. In the said affidavits, it has been primarily submitted that the matter has been settled and the appellant-applicant and the prosecutrix want to marry each other. The father of the appellant-applicant has undertaken to take care of the prosecutrix in all respects and treat her as her daughter-in-law. In the joint affidavit that has been filed, it is stated by the father of the appellant-applicant and mother of the prosecutrix that they are ready to perform the marriage and they have no grudge against each other as the matter has amicably been settled once for all. The prosecutrix has herself stated that she is ready to perform marriage with the appellant-applicant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that in fact even during cross-examination of the prosecutrix she has stated that she wanted to marry the appellant-applicant. It was stated by her that she was ready to reside with Ravinder and she did not want any action against him. The appellant-applicant is in custody since 6.3.2009. He has undergone about one and half years of sentence out of the sentence of 7 years that has been imposed.

Learned Counsel for the U.T. has submitted that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident. She was less than 16 years of age. Therefore, the appellant-applicant would be deemed to have committed an offence of rape in view of clause Sixthly of Section 375 IPC.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the parties have settled their dispute and the appellant-applicant, it is stated by the learned Counsel appearing for him, wants to marry the prosecutrix. Even the prosecutrix has stated that she wants to marry him; besides, the father of the appellant-applicant and mother of the prosecutrix have also stated that they have no objection to the marriage amongst the appellant-applicant and the prosecutrix. It may also be noticed that the prosecutrix had remained with the appellant-applicant for about 15 days for the period from 18.2.2009 to 5.3.2009. The fact that she was less than 16 years at the time of incident would be a circumstance to be considered at the time of final hearing.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant-applicant during the pendency of the appeal shall remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh.