Veerma Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Vide impugned judgment dated 31.08.2007 Joga Ram has been convicted for the offrences punishable under Section 363, 366 and 376(2)(G) IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 4 years, 4 years and 10 years respectively for the three offences.

Vide judgment dated 27.06.2009 Veerma Ram has likewise been convicted for the offences and same punishment has been inflicted. Two judgments have been pronounced because Veerma Ram was absconded and was subsequently tried pursuant to the same FIR.

Learned counsel for the appellants urge that from the complaint Exhibit-P1 lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 30.03.2006 it is apparent that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and for this even the testimony of the prosecutrix is heavily relied upon.

Having perused the testimony of the prosecutrix it certainly emerges that she was a consenting party but the issue turns against the appellant on the age of the prosecutrix. As per the prosecution the date of the birth of the prosecutrix was 10.06.1993 and this would make her less than 16 years of age when the offence was committed.

Since the original record forms part of the trial against Joga Ram, I would be referring to the documents exhibited in said case. Exhibit-P-21A is the application form dated 15.07.1999 bearing the thumb impression of the father of the prosecutrix recording her date of birth to be 10.06.1993. Age shown is 6 years. The exhibit shows that the year '92' has been cut to read '93' and the age '7' years cut to record '6' years. Ex.-P22 is the photocopy of the school register when the prosecutrix cleared Class-3 examination. It records the marks obtained by the prosecutrix and her date of birth as 10.06.1993. Exhibit-P7 is the transfer certificate when the prosectrix left the school on 16.05.2003 on clearing Class-5. It records her date of birth as 10.06.1993.

With reference to the cutting on Exhibit-P-21A it is urged that the documentary evidence has to be ignored and the testimony of Dr. Madan Lal PW-8 who proved medico legal report Exhibit-P8 opining that the date of the prosecutrix was between 17 to 19 years must be given primacy.

It is settled law that the medico legal report can be relied upon in absence of documentary evidence. It is no doubt true that the Exhibit-P-21A has a correction. But even if I were to take the original year 1992 been converted in to 1993 and the age of the prosecutrix reduced from 7 years to 6 years, at best, it would be a case where the age of the prosecutrix would be 7 years as on 10.06.1993 and on the date of the offence being 30.03.2006 the prosecutrix would be still a minor.

Thus, the so called cutting is irrelevant. That apart, there is ample evidence that the correction was made in the original form submitted on 15.07.1999 on the day when the form was submitted, proved from Exhibit-P22 and Exhibit-P7, both of which, with reference to the school record, record date of birth of the prosecutrix as 10.06.1993.

Under the circumstances it is to be held that the prosecutrix was a minor when the offence took place and thus her consent has to be ignored.

The appeals are dismissed.

The appellant Joga Ram was granted bail on 12.07.2013. He shall surrender to serve the remaining sentence.