The Additional Sessions Judge III, Hardoi vide his judgment dated September 5th, 1990 acquitted A-3 as the prosecution was not able to establish any case against her. However, on the basis of the prosecution evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge III held that the prosecutrix was about 17 years of age at the time of occurrence of crime and found A-1 guilty under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and the different sentences for other offences which were ordered to run concurrently. A-1 challenged the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge III, Hardoi before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The High Court vide its judgment dated March 11th, 2003 reversed the judgment of the trial court and acquitted A-1. While acquitting A-1, the High Court gave three reasons, namely; (1) kidnapping took place on September 19th, 1989 whereas the report of the occurrence was lodged after ten days and there was no reasonable and plausible explanation as to why the report could not be lodged promptly and why it had been delayed for ten days; (2) according to medical evidence, the prosecutrix was found to be 17 years of age and she could be even of 19 years of age at the time of occurrence and (3) no internal or external injury was found on her body and she was habitual to sexual intercourse. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the entire reasoning of the High Court as it is which reads as follows: “It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to the prosecution, alleged kidnapping took place on 19th September, 1989 whereas the report of the occurrence was lodged after ten days. There was no reasonable and plausible explanation forthcoming from the side of the prosecution as to why after alleged kidnapping of the minor girl a report could not be lodged promptly and why it has been delayed for ten days. This by itself shows that the report had been lodged after consultation and after due deliberation and the prosecution can be safely looked with doubt. I fully agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and furthermore, according to medical evidence on record, girl in question was found 17 years of age and she could be even 19 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. No internal or external injury was found on her body and she was used to sexual intercourse. The charge of rape also stands not proved. The learned court below was thus not justified in believing the prosecution theory and convicted the appellant.” We are indeed surprised by the casual approach with which the High Court has dealt with the matter. The judgment of the High Court is not only cryptic and perfunctory but it has also not taken into consideration the crucial evidence on record. On flimsy grounds, the accused convicted of a serious crime of kidnapping and rape has been acquitted. There is no application of mind to the evidence of the prosecutrix at all. Having not been benefitted by the proper consideration of the evidence by the High Court, we have looked into the entire evidence on record carefully. The prosecutrix is an illiterate and rustic young woman. She does not seem to have had formal education and, therefore, there is no school certificate available on record. In the FIR, the age of the prosecutrix has been stated to be 13 years. In her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix stated that her age was 13 years. PW-1, who is elder brother of the prosecutrix, in his deposition also stated that the age of the prosecutrix was 13 years at the relevant time. However, the doctor – PW-5 on the basis of her X-ray as well as physical examination opined that the prosecutrix was 17 years of age. The trial court on consideration of the entire evidence recorded a categorical finding that the prosecutrix was about 17 years of age at the time of occurrence. This is what the trial court said: “According to the complainant Ramphal, PW-2 was aged 13 years at the time of the occurrence, but during the cross-examination, the complainant has stated in para 7 of her cross-examination that he was aged about 24 years and PW-2 was younger to him by 8-9 years. Thus, the age of the prosecutrix, according to the statement of the complainant comes to 16 years. (800)
