STA TE OF CHHATTISGARHversusLEKHRAM

                                                                                     ....
A                           STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
                                       v.
                                   LEKHRAM

                                   APRIL 5, 2006

B                     [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.)


          Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 366 and 376/Jndian Evidence Act; S. 35:

          Abduction and rape of a minor married woman by the accused-Age
C of prosecutrix-Proof of-Entry in the School register-Admissibility in
    evidence-Held: A register maintained in a School is admissible in evidence
    to prove date of birth of a person-Though an entry in the register is not
    conclusive proof of date of birth of the student bu1 it has evidentiary value-
    Since entries in the register and statement of father of the prosecutrix
D   corroborated by other witnesses, there was no reason for disbelieving the
    same by the.High Court-Hence, !he judgment of the High Court convicting
    the accused by reversing the order of the trial Court can not be sustained
    and set aside.

          Sentencing-Abduction and rape of a minor -Held: Prosecutrix could
E   not prove that she was enticed away from the custody of her guardian by the
    accused--Jn the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, both the Courts
    below have rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecutrix was a
    consenting party-Hence in the interest ofjustice. the accused is directed to
    be sentenced to the period already undergone by him-Directions issued

F         The Respondent was working in the house of the father of the
    prosecutrix (PW-1), who was married in the year 1985. When she came back
    to her parent's house after the 'gauna' ceremony she was allegedly induced
    by the respondent to leave the village along with him in the night intervening
    between 25th and 26th February, 1986. First Information Report was lodged
G   on 26.2.1986 by brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, PW6. A case under Sections
    366 and 376 I.P.C. was registered against the accused respondent. The
    prosecutrix (PW-1) was recovered on 23.3.1987.

         The Trial Com1 on the basis of the evidence opined that on the date of

                                         826
H
    828                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2006] 3 S.C R.

A sustained.his set aside accordingly. (831-B-C)
           2. The prosecutrix was a mature girl. She was married. She spent a few
    months in her in-laws' place. The Respondent was working in her house. They,
    thus, knew each other for a long time. The prosecution evidently could not
    prove its case that she was enticed away from the custody of her guardian by
B   the Respondent on a false plea that he would marry her. She denied the said
    suggestion as presumably she was aware that she being married, the question
    of her marrying the Respondent again may not arise. She lived for some time
    with the Respondent in a rented house. Both the Courts proceeded on the basis
    that she was a consenting party. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
C   this case and having regard to the fact that both the courts have arrived at the
    conclusion that she was a consenting party, it may not be proper to send the
    Appellant back to prisori. Hence, in the interest of justice, the Respondent is
    directed to be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. [831-E-F-GJ

            CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 326 of
D   1999.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.1997 of the High Court of
    M.P. in Crl. A. No. 269/57.

            Dr. Manish Singhvi, Atul Jha and D.K. Sinha for the Appellants.
E
            Mrs. K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          S.B. SINHA, J. The Respondent herein was working in the house of the
F   father of Sushila Bai (PW-I). She is said to have been born on 25.12.1970.
    She was admitted in a village school in 1977. She was married in the year
    1985. She came back to her parent's place from her in-laws house after the
    'gauna' ceremony was celebrated. The Respondent herein is said to have
    induced her to !eave the village along with him in the night intervening
    between 25th and 26th February, 1986. A First Information Report was lodged
G   on 26.2.1986 by Jeewan Ram Chandel (PW-6) who happened to be the brother-
    in-law of the prosecutrix Sushila Bai. In the said report, the Respondent herein
    was said to have been abducted her. The father of the prosecutrix, however,
    was asked by the officer-in-charge of the police station to produce proof of
    her age whereupon certificate as per the school register was filed. A case
H   under Sections 366 and 376 was thereafter initiated against the Respondent.
                       STA TE OF CHI-IA l flSGARH v. Ll.KHRAM                   827
     occurrence she was a minor, and that in view of the fact that the Respondent      A
     had sexual intercourse with her, the charge of rape must be held to have been
     proved, but no case has been made out against him under Sections 363 and
     366 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, taking a lenient view of the matter, trial
     Court sentenced him to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section
     376 IPC. On appeal, the High Court did not enter into the evidences brought       B
     on record and reversed the findings of the Trial Court on the premise that
     entries made in a school register is not conclusive evidence as regards the
     date of birth of the prosecutrix. Hence the present appeal.

           Allowing the appeal, the Court

           HELD: t.t. A register maintained in a school is admissible in evidence
                                                                                       c
     to prove date of birth of the person concerned in terms of Section 35 of the
     Indian Evidence Act. Such dates of births are recorded in the school register
     by the authorities in discharge of their public duty. PW-5, and Assistant
     Teacher in the said school in the year 1977, categorically stated that the
     date of birth of the prosecutrix was disclosed by her mother. Father of the       D
     prosecutrix also deposed to the said effect. Nothing has been elicited in the
     cross examination of witnesses to show that their statements were not correct.
                                                                         1830-E-FI

           1.2. The prosecutrix took admission in the year 1977. She was,
     therefore, about 6-7 years old at that time. She was admitted in Class I. Even    E
     by the village standard, she took admission in the school a bit late. She was
     married in the year 1985 when she was evidently a minor. It may be true that
     an entry in the school register is not conclusive but it has evidentiary value.

--   Such evdentiary value of a school register is corroborated by oral evidence
     as the same was recorded on the basis of the statement of the mother of the       F
     prosecutrix.1830-G-H; 831-AI

           1.3. Only because PW-3 the father of the prosecutrix could not state
     about the date of birth of his other children, the same, by itself, would not
     mean that he had been deposing falsely. However, in answer to the querries
     made by the counsel for the parties, he categorically stated about the year in G
     which his other children were born. His statement in this behalf appears to
     be consistent and if the said statements were corroborative of entries made
     in their register in the school, there was no reason as to why the High Court
     should have disbelieved the same. Therefore, the High Court committed a
     serious error in passing the impugned judgment. It cannot, therefore, be H
          STATE OF CHHA ITISGARH v. LEKHRAM [S.B. SINHA, J.)              829

The prosecutrix (PW-I) and the Respondent thereafter were found to be A
residing at Nagpur. The first informant was sent there by the father of the
prosecutrix with the police party. PW-I was recovered on 23.3.1987.

      PW- I alleged in her evidence before the court that she was taken out
of the house by the Respondent stating that he would take her to the
Narnmda Fair.                                                               B
      The prosecution admittedly was proceeding on the hypothesis that the
Respondent had assured her that he would keep her like his wife. When she
denied the said fact, she was declared hostile.

       Before the learned Trial Judge, evidence was adduced on behalf of the C
prosecution to show that as on 25.2.1986, she was minor. Apart from the
statement of the prosecutrix herself, her father (PW-3) as also the Head
Master (PW-4) and the Assistant Teacher (PW-5) of the Primary Govt. School
Baj Gauda were examined. The entry in the school register showing the date
of birth of the prosecutrix to be 25.12.1970 was proved. The learned Sessions D
Judge on the basis of the said evidence opined that on the date of occurrence
she was a minor.

      The learned Sessions Judge proceeded on the basis that having regard
to the age of the prosecutrix the stand of the defence that the accused had
sexual intercourse with her with consent was of little importance. The learned   E
Sessions Judge opined that in view of the fact that the Respondent herein
had not disputed that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix at
Nagpur~ the charge of rape must be held to have been proved. It was,
however, held that no case has been made out against the Respondent under
Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Taking a lenient view of the      F
matter, the Respondent was sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous
imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

      In the appeal, the High Court did not enter into the evidences brought
on record. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge was reversed on the
premise that entries made in a school register is not conclusive evidence as G
regards the date of birth of PW-I. The evidence of PW-3 the father of the
prosecutrix was also disbelieved solely on the ground that he was not in a
position to say about the date of birth of his other children.

     The sole question which, thus, arises for our consideration is as to
whether the State has brought enough materials on record to prove that PW- H
    830                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A     was a minor as on the date of occurrence.

          PW-4 Shri Vishnu Prasad Shrivastava was working as a Head Master
    in the primary government school Baj Gauda. He stated on oath that while
    taking admission, her mother disclosed about the date of birth on the basis
    of which the same was recorded in the school register as 25.12.1970.
B
          PW-5 Shri Jumuk Lal Sahu was an Assistant Teacher in the year 1977-
    78 when PW- I was admined in the said school. He proved the said entries
    as having been written by him. He further stated that the date of birth of PW-
    1 was certified by Shakuntala Devi, mother of the prosecutrix.

C         Nothing, in our opinion, has been elicited in the cross-examination of
    the said witnesses to show that their statements were not correct. PW-3 is
    the father of the prosecutrix. According to him, his eldest daughter Utlara
    was born in the year 1966 and the second daughter Nandni Kumari in 1968.
    Sushila Bai prosecutrix was born on 25.12.1970. He further stated that the son
D   Santosh was born in the year 1973 and thereafter another son Kamlesh was
    born in 1976. The last child Mukta was born in 1980.

         PW-I prosecutrix admitted that she was the third child of her parents
    and two of her sisters are elder to her.

E         A register maintained in a school is admissible in evidence to prove
    date of birth of the person concerned in terms of Section 35 of the Indian
    Evidence Act. Such dates of births are recorded in the school register by the
    authorities in discharge of their public duty. PW-5, who was an Assistant


F
    Teacher in the said school in the year 1977, categorically stated that the
    mother of the prosecutrix disclosed her date of birth. Father of the prosecutrix
    also deposed to the said effect.
                                                                                        -
          The prosecutrix took admission in the year 1977. She was, therefore,
    about 6-7 years old at that time. She was admitted in Class I. Even by the
    village standard, she took admission in the school a bit late. She was married
    in the year 1985 when she was evidently a minor. She stayed in her in-laws
G   place for some time and after the 'gauna' ceremony, she came back. The
    materials on record as regard the age of the prosecutrix was, therefore,
    required to be considered on the aforementioned backdrop. It may be true
    that an entry in the school register is not conclusive but it has evidentiary
    value. Such evidentiary value of a school register is corroborated by oral
H   evidence as the same was recorded on the basis of the statement of the
          STATE OF CHHATTISGARH v. LEKHRAM (S.B. SINHA.l]               831

mother of the prosecutrix.                                                     A
      Only because PW-3 the father of the prosecutrix could not state about
the date of birth of his other children, the same, by itself, would not mean
that he had been deposing falsely. We have noticed hereinbefore, that he,
in answer to the querries made by the counsel for the parties, categorically
stated about the year in which his other children were born. His statement B
in this behalf appears to be consistent and if the said statements were
corroborative of the entries made in the register in the school, there was no
reason as to why the High Court should have disbelieved the same. We,
therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in
passing the impugned judgment. It cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is set C
aside accordingly.

      This brings us to the question of quantum of sentence. The question
which, thus, arises for consideration is whether a case has been made out to
invoke the proviso appended to Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The
Trial Court did so.                                                          D
        The prosecutrix was a mature girl. She was married. She spent a few
months in her in-laws' place. The Respondent was working in her house.
They, thus, knew each other for a long time. The prosecution evidently could
nor prove its case that she was enticed away from the custody of her
guardian by the Respondent on a false plea that :ic would marry her. She E
denied the said suggestion as presumably she was aware that she being
married, the question of her marrying the Respondent again may not arise.
She lived for some time with the Respondent in a rented house. Both the
courts proceeded on the basis that she was a consenting party. The
occurrence took place in the year 1986. The Respondent preferred an appeal F
before the High Court in the year I987. The s.ame remained pending about
 I 0 years. The special leave petition was filed by the State 230 days after the
prescribed period of limitation for preferring such appeal. The delay in filing
the special leave petition, however, was condoned. He is said to have
remained in custody for about one and a half year. In the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that both the courts G
have arrived at the conclusion that she was a consenting party, in our
opinion, it may not be proper to send the Appellant back to prison.

     For the aforementioned reasons, while setting aside the judgment of the
High Court and affirming that of the Trial Court, we are of the opinion that
                                                                               H
    832                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A the interest of justice would be met if the Respondent is directed to be
    sentenced to the period already undergone by him. This appeal is allowed
    with the aforementioned directions.

    V.S.S.                                                  Appeal allowed.

B