Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 698 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Prem Chand

2011-02-26

DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJAY KAROL

body2011
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 07.11.2000 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, in Session Trial No. 9 of 1998, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 5.9.1997, the prosecutrix (PW-2) along with her brother Paras Ram (PW-6) had gone to attend a fair in village Rani Kot. The accused had also gone to attend this fair. According to the prosecution, the accused Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes enticed the prosecutrix from the fair and took her to his house at Ani on 5.9.1997 itself. There, the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix from 5.9.1997 to 8.9.1997. When the prosecutrix did not return home, her father PW-3 Sh. Pritam Chand searched for her. PW-6 Paras Ram informed his father PW-3 on 7.9.1997 that the accused had kidnapped PW-2. Thereafter, the father lodged FIR (Ext.PW-3/A) against the accused at Police Station, Ani on 8.9.1997. The matter was investigated. PW-10 HC Keshav Ram proceeded to search the house of the accused at Ani on 9.9.1997. There the prosecutrix and the accused were seen walking together at Ani. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and the girl was handed over to her parents. 3. From the evidence on record, it is moré than apparent that the prosecutrix went with the accused of her own free will. Even the prosecutrix in her statement stated that the accused had earlier visited her house and proposed that she should get married to him. According to her, she and her brother went to attend the fair at Rani Kot on 5.9.1997. Her brother went away and she was all alone. The accused asked her to get married to him. She refused and then according to her, the accused forcibly took her from Rani Kot to his house at Ani and committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent. She stated that the mother of the accused was present in the house and was staying in another room. There, she was illegally confined for three nights. In cross-examination, she admitted that she had known the accused earlier. She stated that the mother of the accused was present in the house and was staying in another room. There, she was illegally confined for three nights. In cross-examination, she admitted that she had known the accused earlier. She also admits that the accused met her at the village fair on 5.9.1997 at 12 noon and she herself stayed with the accused in the fair for about 3 hours, where they both enjoyed the ferris wheel ride. According to her, at 3.00 P.M. she was forcibly taken from there. She has however admitted that the house of the accused is at two hours walking distance from Rani Kot. She also admitted that there were hundreds of people at the fair. She has also admitted the photographs, Ext.DX and Ext.DY, where she is sitting happily with the accused. Another girl Veena of her village is also shown in the photograph Ext.DY. While going from the fair to village Ani, she did not raise any alarm or complain to anybody, though hundreds of persons were present there. The prosecutrix also admits that on 5.9.1997 itself her brother and parents had come to know about the fact that she and the accused had left the fair. She also admits that she was about 18 years of age at the time of occurrence. But, according to her she does not know her exact date of birth. 4. PW-6 Paras Ram stated that he and his sister, the prosecutrix had gone to attend the fair at village Rani Kot and the same evening on 5.9.1997, he was informed by Sumitra Devi that the accused had enticed away his younger sister and according to him, he informed his father Pritam Chand about this fact on next day i.e. 6.9.1997. In cross-examination, he admitted that on 5.9.1997 itself Veena Devi had informed him that his sister had married the accused and gone to his house with him. Neither Veena Devi nor Sumitra Devi have been examined by the prosecution. PW-3 Pritam Chand, father of the prosecutrix stated that on 6.9.1997 when his son returned from the fair, he informed him that the accused had taken away the prosecutrix. There is no explanation as to why the FIR was not lodged for two days upto 8.9.1997. Neither Veena Devi nor Sumitra Devi have been examined by the prosecution. PW-3 Pritam Chand, father of the prosecutrix stated that on 6.9.1997 when his son returned from the fair, he informed him that the accused had taken away the prosecutrix. There is no explanation as to why the FIR was not lodged for two days upto 8.9.1997. According to him, when he along with the police went towards the house of the accused on 9.9.1997, they had seen the accused and the prosecutrix walking together towards Ani at a distance of one km. from Ani. It is thus clear that the prosecutrix was willingly accompanying the accused. Therefore, the consent is writ large. Even according to the prosecution, the prosecutrix was almost 18 years of age at the time when the incident took place. 5. Therefore, the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We find no merit in the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.