Shiv Kumar v. State Of Haryana

 

 
  
  
 

  

    !

""##  $! %!& "





    !"!#$

'!  (")  ! ""## '!$*

!+,)()%!&   % - ""# ."!!!.& ""## / ,/  !!

".&#!0/)0
1  2 

 !/341  

!/!! 5) ) 6 547
7#8 )0)+ !.&) ""##+ ! #&! !'$()# !#$!#'!

 547



  






       547



  






       47





  






      
  * #&) !  

) "!!9/ &!  .! !"#)+ !)+

##/  2 

)+  +"! ! #/+ !

&/!.! !#&) ""##  !9 !/ #/+   !  !:

 &/ !) ""## /// !   !  !  &-  ""##* !  
  

.  ! )!  

! 


 !.#& !"" !! / !")+  ""##+.# ) +.& "/ .&!""! /// )  "!!9  
 !; ! # !8"!! !  !) "!!9  ! / ! !! ! ! -  "!!9 !  !#/+ !#+ 7#   ! )<+  )34="!> +!/!- !!) "!!9+## +!  #/##&9  #!"!! 
!7
+.  .& !"#.! #!!#
!  - #!!#
!"/"! )!   !// ""##! " .#!

 ) 5 547
)+  "#/#&#  !#  !/   #.#!!) #!!#
! ,/ 

  ""## ! ) 5 547
//! .&  ) ""## ""!  
!.&+& "!""#  - ! /"! +! ""## "!)!  #!&!/&5&!?&

   9   &!)+".& 
!  !!


  5 @!#! ""## 

 #!!#
!/!  !9"##&2 ! #// 34 "!%! !.  !+! 9!# !*,!& .& "!!9#/ !.!) #.) " / ".& '#A!9 7: +  #!#&"+! ""##%#  #!!#
! !!.&!#&/ .! !B977 "!!9"!.& "!7: + "!    )/!##& !9  !+/   "! "!!9! !).!  "

 /!! ! 6   /!#)    ! "!!99 7:

! # .!  "!!9+!!.& !/! !+ +9 "!  '! !) "!., "!!9 "   !! ! ! # .!+4! ! ! / !! + .!  "!!9 22? +!/#&.!

.& #!!#
!! !!!"

"&  !
! "!!9 +/ !.! . 22?

.   !.! ."!"!#&.# ) ""##!

./  ..  % ! !.  #! !*(+  ! # #!+!.&

 "!!9 ""###!#& +/  +/"!&)

.+!/#&"!!#&/!.& #!!#
! @!#! ""##! !.  ""## + !#&2&!/   ##/!!'! !) "!!9+ ""#& !!  ! #!"! 3 #&4&
!.& ( ! %!&%.   # + #.*.& 
!  /    ""## #!&!/ ! 5&!  &! +!  )!!""! ) "# !# 



   

 !"
#
 # "$ %  

   

 !"
#
 # "!&$ '



   

 "
#
 # "! ? @!# ! "#  !!.#  ""## !"" "!!9+  + !#+!/##& ! ! !+  %! !.  / "!!9 .#&"!  !!. &!  ?& & !! !!) "!""##.& ""## & ! #.#. - &! ""## 

 +   +   #!&!/5&!&&) . .& #!#)*!!  +    2 4  !#!#! "!"! ""! .*+  !.#4!"!  ! 
! "!!9  9 .    B9  77  +  .     

  .&  

, 4 //A!)9 7: !   #

!/!!) !   )0# / ) #!#! ""## "!"

"&  !
! 3 #&4&
! "!!9 #!!#
! !! !!/ .!  "!!9)  .! "! !& .& 
! &  !."! # !"! .! #!!#
!)! +  #+7!#&) #!* !"! +9 .& "!7: )+ " .!  "!!9  + !!! 22?!&<  + 

2 22?%+ !)7: #  !9  

! 
! "!!9B977 !+  #  "!/   !"! !+ " /!!)

!    !/!4+### !/ "# ! ,/  & "!!!.#  / "!!9 ."! !+  #+#+)#/ ,/ !!.&     
!   

(  ) * +

 "
#
 #

",! 3! ! !) "!& !  / "!!9 .& /"!<

!.! - !!)  
!  + / "!!9 ."! !+ #+#) #!+! .& "!!9 ""##))'!*(+! "!.& 3@  !+ !"  +!/* 
!+!. +!.&  "!B ##!!.+ "!!9

- ""## ."! -  .+    # !!! # ,!+!"! .& "!!9#/ !.!) / #. ! ,!# 
!.#  9#.+ "!!9 ""##+! #!) / "!!9 ..#  !+  ##+ # . !#!  ##/) 
!# # "!

#.#  /# .&  +!.# .  4"! !  !"!  . .#&"! !+  #+4 . # !/ ,/  A two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Kumar vs. Mohan Thedani, AIR 2003 SC 2418, speaking through Justice Arijit Pasayat, held as follows:- "21. The grounds of exclusion of extrinsic evidence are N to admit inferior evidence when law requires superior would amount to nullifying the law, (ii) when parties have deliberately put their agreement into writing, it is conclusively presumed, between themselves and their privies, that they intended the writing to form a full and final statement of their intentions, and one which should be placed beyond the reach of future controversy, bad faith and treacherous memory."

12.

Similarly, a two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narbada Devi Gupta vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another, 2003 (8) SCC 745, speaking through Justice D. M Dharmadhikari, held as follows:-

  "16. ...The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the 'evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue..."

13.

In the case at hand, the birth certificate admittedly carries cutting in the column regarding the name of the parents of the prosecutrix. The prosecution has neither made any effort to show if the said rectification was made in lieu of any application moved qua the concerned document nor has it examined the person who had made those modifications. As a result, the contents of the document are rendered doubtful. Since the age of the prosecutrix has not been established, the role of consent comes into play. Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law and Stroud's Judicial Dictionary provide an identical definition of consent which reads as follows: "An act of reason accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good or evil on either side."

The Black's Law Dictionary defines consent as: "a concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith. "

It further refers to Hallmark vs. State 22 Okl. Cr. 422 to define consent qua rape wherein it was held that "consent of the will, and submission under the influence of fear or terror cannot amount to real consent. There must be an exercise of intelligence based on knowledge of its significance and moral quality and there must be a choice between resistance and assent."

Valid consent necessarily requires due and active consideration of all the relevant circumstances, actions, and consequences that flow from the

. said act, before assenting. Whatever choice one makes, it must be reasoned and adopted after being alive to all the probable outcomes. While adjudicating a case, the factum of consent is to be inferred after closely scrutinizing the surrounding and relevant circumstances. Taking into account the aforesaid discussion, the consensual nature of the relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix cannot be ruled out.  4 + . ) 
! #! #! ""## .#.# /  ""##%) "!""###+  "/,/   !!

".&#! 0/)0) !.&  - ""## !.&<  !/! /

       "!        .#  .    !&  .  #    !/ 5  7/ ## ""#=>)    &)   ##  #   "!/#& /  0  ,

 
:

 !"*/C!  DC1 :

 !!"!.#  DC1