Skip to content


Shiv Dutt and ors. Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal Nos. 1733-SB 2002 and 77-SB of 2003
Judge
Reported in(2006)143PLR706
ActsChild Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 - Sections 4 and 5; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Sections 6; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 201, 362, 363 and 366
AppellantShiv Dutt and ors.
RespondentState of Haryana
Appellant Advocate Jaswant Jain, Adv. in Criminal Appeal No. 1733-SB of 2002 and; Dheraj Chawla, Adv. in Criminal Appea
Respondent Advocate Anil Rathee, A.A.G.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........month; all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. prosecution case is that bala rani aged above 10 years was studying in 5th class. on 20.12.2001, at about mid night, accused deepak, his bua kishan pyari, ram sarup, father of deepak, shiv dutt husband of kishan pyari and hemant, brother of deepak came to the house of bala rani prosecutrix in village panhera khurd. bala rani was present in the house along with her mother kamla. then accused had a talk with kamla bala rani and her younger brother braham and younger sister babita were lying on the cot in the court-yard of the house. at that time ram sarup had a gun hung around his shoulder and had asked bala rani to get into the van of shiv dutt accused; which had been parked outside the house. then bala rani had.....
Judgment:

M.M. Aggarwal, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of above said two appeals-one filed by Shiv Dutt and Kishan Pyari and another filed by Kamla, Ram Sarup, Hemant an Deepak against the judgment/order dated 25.12.2002 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby they had been convicted for offence under Sections 363/362/201 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 5 of Child Marriage Restraint Act and sentenced as under: -

For offence under Section 366 I.P.C, accused Shiv Dutt, Kamla, Ram Sarup, Hemant, Deepak and Kishan Pyari were sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months;

For offence under Section 363 I.P.C, accused Shiv Dutt, Ram Sarup, Hemant, Deepak and Kishan Pyari were sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months;

For offence under Section 201 I.P.C, accused Ram Sarup was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 3 months;

For offence under Section 4 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, accused Deepak was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month;

For offence under Section 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, accused Shiv Dutt, Kamla, Ram Sarup, Hemant, Deepak and Kishan Pyari were sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month; All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case is that Bala Rani aged above 10 years was studying in 5th Class. On 20.12.2001, at about mid night, accused Deepak, his Bua Kishan Pyari, Ram Sarup, father of Deepak, Shiv Dutt husband of Kishan Pyari and Hemant, brother of Deepak came to the house of Bala Rani prosecutrix in village Panhera Khurd. Bala Rani was present in the house along with her mother Kamla. Then accused had a talk with Kamla Bala Rani and her younger brother Braham and younger sister Babita were lying on the cot in the court-yard of the house. At that time Ram Sarup had a gun hung around his shoulder and had asked Bala Rani to get into the Van of Shiv Dutt accused; which had been parked outside the house. Then Bala Rani had asked as to where they were being taken at that odd time and she stated that she did not want to go. Then Ram Sarup and other accused had threatened her. Then Bala Rani and her younger brother and sister were forcibly made to sit in the Van. Kishan Payari accused accompanied all the accused and boarded the Van. Bala Rani was taken to a temple situated in the jungles of village Kondal and she was forcibly married with Deepak. Bala Rani was given danda and slap blows by Kishan Pyari who had threatened that if she does not marry, she will be shot dead by Ram Sarup. Desh Raj photographer was called and he took the photographs of the marriage. Ram Sarup had collected the photos and negatives from Singla Studio, Hatin. After the marriage, Bala Rani was brought to village Pahari and. kept there for a couple of days. Thereafter, Parkash, Chhida and Chiranji, who are uncles of Bala Rani, came to know the facts and brought her back. That Kamla accused' had forced Bala Rani to undergo the marriage. Vishnu Dutt husband of Kamla was missing and Kamla had illicit relations with Ram Sarup accused. After receiving this information, Lachhi, maternal grand-father of Bala Rani had made complaint to the police. Police had registered the case. Thereafter, accused-appellants were arrested. After completion of investigation, accused were challaned. After trial, the case was found to be duly proved against them. They were accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

3. In this case, the accused-appellants had been charged for offence under Section 363 I.P.C. for kidnapping Bala Rani, daughter of Vishnu without the consent of Lachhi Ram geardian. They were charged for offence under Section 366 I.P.C. for kidnapping Bala Rani with intent that she may be compelled to marry with Deepak against her will.

4. It was admitted by Lachhi complainant appearing as PW-2 that Vishnu Dutta hus-band of Kamla was missing since 1 year and 6 months and that he might have been done to death. As per Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father, and after him, the mother is the guardian. It was admitted by Lachhi that he had not been appointed guardian of Bala Rani by any Court. Kamla is admittedly mother of Bala Rani and she was the guardian when Vishnu, father of the child was missing and was suspected to have died.

5. It is the case of the prosecution and admitted fact also that Kamla, mother of the child had accompanied the other accused for getting Bala Rani married to Deepak. The trial Court while convicting the accused appellants for offence under Sections 363/366 IPC, had relied on the statement of Bala Rani that Ram Samp had a gun and then she and her younger brother and sister were made to sit in the Van and then taken to the temple situated in the Van and then taken to the temple situated in the jungle of village Kondal where Bala Rani was forcibly married with accused Deepak. She had also stated that Kishan Pyari (mother of Bala Rani) had given danda and slap blows and had threatened that if she did not marry with Deepak, she will be shot dead.

However, there had been no charge of abduction in this case, whereas the charge was only for kidnapping. It was stated by PW-2 Lachhi that as per the information, there had been no sexual intercourse and also that the girl was brought back after two days.

6 There as no charge of abduction in this case. There could be no kidnapping within the meaning of Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. as Kamla being mother, was lawful guardian of Bala Rani and Bala Rani was never taken out from the lawful guardianship without the consent of the guardian.

7. Under these circumstances, I hold that there was no case for offence under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. for kidnapping of Bala Rani from the lawful guardianship or, with intent that she may be compelled to marry with Deepak. As such, accused appellants are acquitted for offence under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C.

8. PW-6 Desh Raj Singh Photographer had stated that Ram Sarup had come to the studio in Hathin and had taken him to the temple in village Kondal on 10.12.2001. There was marriage of Deepak with Bala Rani. Some Pandit had got the ceremony conducted. He took photographs and charged money and handed over the photographs with negatives to Ram Sarup. However, these had been destroyed by Ram Sarup accused. Case against Ram Sarup for offence under Section 201 IPC was, therefore, proved. Since Bala Rani was a female and had not completed 18 years of age, she was a child within the meaning of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. Deepak accused who was 24 years of age, had contracted marriage with the child. He was liable for offence under Section 4 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (for short 'the Act'). The other accused who had conducted or directed such marriage were liable for offence under Section 5 of the Act. As such, this Deepak accused had been rightly convicted for offence under Section 4 of the Act, whereas all the other accused, except Deepak had been rightly convicted for offence under Section 5 of the Act. Ram Sarup accused had been rightly, convicted for offence under Section 201 I.P.C.

9. From the above discussion, appeal filed by all the accused appellants i.e. Shiv Dutt, Kamla, Ram Sarup, Hemant Deepak and Kishan Pyari as far as conviction for offence under Sections 363/366 is concerned, stands accepted. All the accused-appellants shall stand acquitted for these offences.

10. For offence under Section 201 I.P.C, Ram Sarup was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rl for 3 months, whereas Deepak accused was sentenced to undergo Rl for three month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further un dergo Rl for one month for offence under Section 4 of the Act, All accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo R l for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R1 for one month for offence under Section 5 of the Act. They have already undergone the period more than the sentences awarded to them,

11. Under these circumstances, while dismissing the appeal as far as offence under Section 201 I.P.C. of Ram Sarup accused, offence under Section 4 of the Act of Deepak accused and offence under Section 5 of the Act of all the accused i.e. Shiv Durt, Kamla, Ram Sarup, Hemant, Deepak and Kishan Pyari, it is directed that no further action in the mater is necessary.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //