TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an intention to marry the minor girl Shankari (PW.4), aged 14 years studying in 8th standard, kidnapped her from S.S.K.V. School, Kancheepuram, by stating that her mother, Parimala (PW.15) was seriously ill and had been admitted to hospital. Shankari (PW.4) took permission to leave the school from her teacher, Rajeshwari (PW.5) and also informed about the said fact to her classmate P. Megala (PW.6). (B) Shankari (PW.4) was taken by A.1 in an auto bearing No. TN 21 B 6582 to Kamatchi Amman Temple, where Shiva (A.2) also came and both of them took Shankari (PW.4) to Orikai road stating that they were going to the hospital. (C) On being questioned by Shankari (PW.4), she was threatened by A.1 and A.2 that if she made noise they would spoil her life. She was taken to the house of Smt. Logammal (PW.7), the grand-mother of A.2 at Kaliampoondi, at about 1.00 P.M. They stayed there at night. On 12.2.1998, M.P. Ekambaram (PW.1), father of Shankari (PW.4) lodged an FIR in Crime No. 209 of 1998 that his daughter had gone to attend the school on 11.2.1998 and did not return. Thus, she was missing. (D) On the same day, i.e. 12.2.1998, Ramalingam @ Ramu (A.3) came from Kancheepur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as A.2 and A.3 are concerned. It set aside their conviction under Sections 366 r/w 109 Indian Penal Code and convicted them under Sections 363 r/w 109 Indian Penal Code and imposed punishment of two years. Hence, these appeals. 3. Shri G. Sivabalamurugan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has challenged the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below mainly on the grounds that the courts failed to appreciate that Shankari (PW.4) had gone voluntarily with A.1 as she was in love with him and wanted to marry him and not under compulsion of any one else. A.2 and A.3 had played no role in their affair or marriage. All independent witnesses i.e. Smt. Logammal (PW.7); Rajeshwari (PW.9) and Vijayalakshmi (PW.12) turned hostile. Shankari (PW.4) was major as opined by Dr. K. Gururaj (PW.20) who issued certificate to the effect that she was about 18 years of age. The courts erred in placing reliance upon the birth certificate of Shankari (PW.4) either given by the Municipality or by the School on the basis of the School Register. In the birth certificate issued by the Municipality, the name of the prosecutrix was not mentioned. Neither M.P. Ekambaram (PW.1), father nor P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ancheepuram reads as under: Certified that E. Shankari D/o M.P. Ekambaram was a student of this school in Eighth Std. during 1997-98 and her date of birth as per our school record (Admn. No. 13714 (n.c.) is 30.3.1984 (Thirtieth March Nineteen Eighty Four). IV. Dr. K. Gururaj (PW.20) examined prosecutrix Shankari (PW.4) and on the basis of Radiological Test Report (Ex.P.16) opined that she was aged about 18 years. 7. Evidence of the witnesses in respect of age: I. M.P. Ekambaram (PW.1) in his examination-in-chief does not say anything about the age of the prosecutrix. Thus, the defence did not cross-examine him on this issue. However, no suggestion had been put to him by the defence that she was major and had developed a liking/love affair with A.1 and had voluntarily gone with him. II. Parimala (PW.15), mother of the prosecutrix had deposed that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 30.3.1984. At the relevant time, prosecutirix was studying in 8th standard and was 14 years of age. Suggestion put to her that she was deposing about the age of her younger daughter and not of Shankari (PW.4) was denied. She also denied that she was deposing falsely. III. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho examined Kaniz Fatima, ... The High Court thus reached the conclusion about the majority without any evidence before it in support of it and in the face of direct evidence against it. 11. Documents made ante litem motam can be relied upon safely, when such documents are admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (Vide: Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1982 SC 1057; and State of Bihar and Ors. v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh and Ors. AIR 1983 SC 684. 12. This Court in Madan Mohan Singh and Ors. v. Rajni Kant and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 2933, considered a large number of judgments including: Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and Ors. AIR 1965 SC 282; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1796; Updesh Kumar and Ors. v. Prithvi Singh and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 703; State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh AIR 2005 SC 1868; Vishnu @ Undrya v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2006 SC 508; Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) 8 SCC 714, and came to the conclusion that while considering such an issue and documents admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, the court has a right to examine the probative value of the contents of the document. Authenticity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
