Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 912 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Ravinder Pal Singh

2012-12-01

R.B.MISRA, SURINDER SINGH

body2012
Judgment Surinder Singh J. Learned trial court acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under section 366 read with Section 34 of IPC in Session Trial No. 15-S/7 of 2007 decided on 26.9.2007, precisely on the ground that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and element of kidnapping was missing. 2. Heard and gone through the records. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the prosecutrix (18) had graduated in the year 2006 from Punjab University and got admission in MA (Visual Arts) in H.P. University at Shimla. On 22.8.2006, she had gone to attend her classes. Her father (PW-2) Satish Kumar was away to Chandigarh to attend a marriage. On his returning in the evening, he did not find the prosecutrix at home. On inquiry from her friend PW-3 Ashu Sood, who was living in HPU hostel, informed him that accused Ravinder Pal had come to meet her, thereafter she left her class room and did not return. (PW-2) Satish Kumar made a complaint to the police in writing Ext PW-2/A. Police lodged the FIR. Investigation was undertaken by (PW-6) SI Satish Sharma. Their whereabouts were not known. 4. On 24.8.2006, father of the prosecutrix received a telephonic message from Moga that Ravinder Pal along with prosecutrix were at Moga. It was in that context that (PW-6) SI Satish Sharma visited Moga (Pb). He took local police assistance and apprehended the accused, who was with the prosecutrix. Both of them were brought to Shimla. Accordingly, accused Ravidner Pal was interrogated. 5. During investigation, he revealed that from Shimla to Moga, they had used the vehicle which was taken in possession vide memo Ext PW-6 and denied kidnapping. Police o took into possession the birth certificate Ext PW-6/D of the prosecutrix and an abstract Ext PW-4/A of Hotel register ‘Deep’, where the prosecutrix and accused had stayed for the night. The second accused Sat Narayan was arrested on 4.9.2006, who is stated to have been arrested having facilitated to commission of offence. It was he who had called the prosecutrix from the class room on the pretext that his wife had come to meet her. 6. Police, on the completion of investigation, found the case of alleged kidnapping of the prosecutrix in furtherance of their common intention. Accordingly, challan was presented for the said offence in the court for the trial of the accused persons. 7. 6. Police, on the completion of investigation, found the case of alleged kidnapping of the prosecutrix in furtherance of their common intention. Accordingly, challan was presented for the said offence in the court for the trial of the accused persons. 7. The accused persons were accordingly charge-sheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and as such, prosecution examined its witnesses to prove the case. Respondents were also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused Ravidner Pal took up the stand that the prosecutrix was known to him for the last so many years, more specifically from the year 2002 and both fell in love with each other. During this period, the prosecutrix had sent love letters and new year greeting cards to him and she had been roaming free will with him at different places even outside Chandigarh. Even while staying in Chandigarh both of them took photographs of various places when they were in the company of each other. Further when she took admission in Shimla, they had also been in continuous touch with each other on their phones. It was also his stand that on 22.8.2006, prosecutrix had called him to Shimla by contacting him on phone, as her father was not there and forced him to marry her since her parents were not agreeing for the said marriage. The prosecutrix had joined the company of the accused with her free will in his car, which broke down twice or thrice on the way to Chandigarh to which he got repaired. The fuel was also filled on the way to Chandigarh. During night, they stayed in a hotel. Accordingly, entries were made without suppressing any fact. In the evening, sister of the prosecutrix had also talked to him twice on telephone. Even the prosecutrix was in contact with her parents w.e.f. 22.8.2006 to 24.8.2006. They assured them that they should come back and both of them will be got married. He also stated in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C that he had given an application to the Investigating officer for taking out the call details to prove his contention, but he did not oblige. They assured them that they should come back and both of them will be got married. He also stated in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C that he had given an application to the Investigating officer for taking out the call details to prove his contention, but he did not oblige. It was also stated by the accused Ravinder Pal that the prosecutrix had got prepared her affidavit of her own since the prosecutrix and other witnesses were under the pressure of parents, therefore, they deposed against him during the trial of the case. 8. Another accused Sat Narayan denied the allegations in toto qua the circumstances put to him. When called upon to enter into their defence, they did not lead any evidence in defence. During the trial, prosecutrix admitted her love affairs with the accused Ravidner Pal and further that she remained in touch with him. She was in contact with him since the year 2002. She also admitted having sent love letter Ext D-12 and also greeting cards Exts D-1 to D11 to the accused Ravinder Pal, which were sent by her either on his birthday or new year eve. She also admitted having voluntarily joined the company of the accused in the yer 2002 when they had visited Kasauli and took photographs together. She also admitted the photographs Exts D-13 to D-26 which were taken at different occasions. Though in her statement, she propounded that on the day of alleged incident she was called by second accused Sat Narayan on the false pretext and he had pushed her into the vehicle, which fact was not find mention in her statement mark DA when confronted with it. Further, she was confronted with various other important facts disclosed by her in examination-in-chief, viz; that she had disclosed to the police that the accused kept on driving the vehicle to unknown place and further at Sector-11, Chandigarh the people had gathered there, when they had noticed them in suspicious circumstances and also having told that the accused after returning from the shop gave some signal to her, were also not found recorded therein. She further stated that she had disclosed to police that the accused had taken her outside his house at Sector 24, where her sister came out and some documents were handed over to her and that the journalist had also come in the Court complex at Moga. Even with respect to these averments she was confronted with her statement. This also did not find mention. Further the prosecutrix admitted that she did not make any hue and cry while going from Chandigarh to Moga in the vehicle of the accused and also admitted that when they started from the University after covering some distance, road was blocked as a tree had fallen down. Then they came back to University and followed another route. Even after leaving Shimla, the vehicle was stopped at petrol pump for fuel. She also changed clothes at Moga which were provided by the sister of the accused and also admitted that no efforts were made by her to raise any alarm or to raise any hue and cry throughout the journey performed by her. She also admitted that in between Shimla-Kalka, vehicle was stopped some where in between and even at that time she did not try to escape. When they reached Chandigarh, they straightaway went to Punjab Engineering College where they stayed for about an hour. According to her, she remained sit in the front seat of the car where the accused persons were coming and going outside. Even at that time, she did not raise any hue and cry. She also admitted that number of persons were present in the college campus, but she did not make any complaint to anyone. When they were going in search of the hotel from one place to another, even she did not raise any objection. She admitted that at various places in Chandigarh, she also noticed police officials present on the red lights by the side of the road. Even she did not make any effort to make any complaint to them. Though she stated that she was threatened but the circumstances show that she had a tacit consent and otherwise also she had enough opportunity to raise hue and cry if she intended to resist. Even she did not make any effort to make any complaint to them. Though she stated that she was threatened but the circumstances show that she had a tacit consent and otherwise also she had enough opportunity to raise hue and cry if she intended to resist. Though she denied that the accused was not having money to defray the expenses of the Advocate for executing relevant affidavit of marriage, but at the same time, she stated that she did not remember that thereafter they proceeded to Moga for bringing money from Smt. Balwinder who was her senior colleague. Though she admitted having reached Moga in the evening and staying in Hotel Gill. Even at that time she did not make any complaint to anyone. 9. She also admitted that on 23/24/8/2006, she had spoken from Moga to Investigating Officer on his mobile. Though she is alleged to have made complaint to the police officials that she was under threat, but this fact has not been so stated by SI Satish Sharma. Rather, he stated that it came to his notice during investigation at Chandigarh and Moga that the prosecutrix had stayed with the accused and was not under any pressure, force or undue influence. He further stated that the accused and the prosecutrix, while staying in hotel, had taken meals and their stay was comfortable. Further that even in the Court complex at Chandigarh, she did not raise any alarm for being taken forcibly and visited the court with the accused of her own. He further admitted that in the affidavit sworn by the prosecutrix, she had stated that there was no force, coercion or pressure or undue influence on her. The investigating Officer did not over rule the possibility of visiting of the prosecutrix and the accused at Moga for arranging money. He also admitted that on 23.8.2006, both the parties had prepared affidavits of their marriage and having produced documents Ext DB as both the parties were agreeing for the marriage inter se prosecutrix and accused Ravinder Pal during the hearing of bail. He further admitted that during the course of investigation, it had also come to the notice that the documents Exts D-1 to D-25, cards, letters etc. were sent by the prosecutrix to the accused. He further admitted that during the course of investigation, it had also come to the notice that the documents Exts D-1 to D-25, cards, letters etc. were sent by the prosecutrix to the accused. Pertinently, he stated that the prosecutrix, at no point of time, disclosed to him that the accused had ever threatened her that her father had captivated by the accused persons. 10. The above discussion of the evidence clearly exhibit that the prosecutrix, who at the time was having age of discretion, had left Shimla in the company of accused persons on 22.8.2006 from University as she had the intimate relationship with the accused Ravinder Pal, who was also an adult. 11. The learned trial court rightly concluded from the above evidence that both might have reached an understanding to tie the nuptial knot. Even later, their parents also agreed for it, but may be because of the caste factor, it did not materialize. The entire gamut of the above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the prosecutrix, was a consenting party in going away with the accused persons from Shimla on the date of alleged incident of her own free will. 12. In these circumstances, when she had joined the company f the accused being a consent party, the office of kidnapping is not made out. Therefore, it is not possible to come to a different view from the above evidence than as already arrived by the learned trial court. Hence, the appeal being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. 13. Respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. Send down the records.