Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 262 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. JAGAT RAM

2013-04-08

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, SURINDER SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH, J. - 1. THE prosecutrix is alleged to be a minor. As per the case of the prosecution, she was raped by one Suresh Kumar, a juvenile, who was tried and acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board. The prosecutrix alleged conspiracy against the present respondents, who were acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences charged, thus, the state felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court in Session Trial No.19-S/7 of 2005 decided on 7.8.2007. 2. HEARD and gone through the record. As already stated above, the prosecutrix is alleged to be minor, but no cogent evidence has been put-forth by prosecution. The prosecution relied upon the medical evidence for her age. PW12 Dr. Neeraj Mittal, on the basis of fusion of bone stated that the prosecutrix was between 15 to 18 years at the time of her medical examination, whereas, PW9 Dr. Anita Puri, alleged her age to be 16 years, based upon the information given by her at the time of medical examination, but the Dental Surgeon opined her age between 17 to 19 years. 3. ANOTHER piece of evidence is copy of Pariwar register Ext.PW5/B, which was sought to be proved from PW11 Sh. Kewal Ram, Panchayat Secretary, wherein estimated year of birth of the prosecutrix is 1989 and there is no supporting evidence what was its basis. Lastly, the prosecution has relied upon school leaving certificate Ext.PW14/E obtained from the Headmaster, Government Middle School Samtha, Tehsil Chopal by the Investigating Officer ASI Chaman Lal, wherein her date of birth has been depicted as 3.4.1989, but it has not been proved in accordance with law as neither the Headmaster issuing the certificate was examined nor it is supported by the admission slip or any other supporting document of the date of birth of the prosecutrix. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of alleged incident. 4. FURTHER, the allegation of rape is alleged against the juvenile, Suresh Kumar, by which she got impregnated and delivered a male child in the month of 'Ashad, 2004'. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of alleged incident. 4. FURTHER, the allegation of rape is alleged against the juvenile, Suresh Kumar, by which she got impregnated and delivered a male child in the month of 'Ashad, 2004'. It is alleged that the respondent when came to know about the advanced stage of her pregnancy, he alongwith other respondents took her to village Bag and on the way, she delivered a Baby, thereafter the respondent Bini Ram had sold to other persons, who were extracting resin in that area and did not allow her to return to the house of her parents. In the month of 'Jeth' 2005, when she was being taken to Una by the person to whom she was sold and had reached Lohana-dhar, the village folk took her to the police and then sent back to her parents house. Her child was snatched by respondent Deepo Devi and then she came to village Dokhra and lodged a complaint Ext.PA. In cross-examination, she stated that she was repeatedly sexually abused by Suresh Kumar and her parents did not enquire about the conception when became visible. Even she did not make any complaint to her parents. She further stated that respondent Gulabi Devi and Deepo Devi both helped her in delivery of the child. She also stated that thereafter she was taken to the house of Suresh Kumar and kept there, where she remained for one year and six months. Significantly, in cross-examination, she stated that her husband is said Suresh Kumar and lived in his house for about 1 1/2 years. She or her parents did not make any complaint to anyone. Pw-2 Hari Singh is her father. He stated that the accused Suresh Kumar had developed relationship with the prosecutrix and she got pregnant and later delivered a child. Respondents Deepo Devi, Bini Ram and Gulabi Devi were with them. After the elopement of the prosecutrix, he went to village Dokhra and Bag as the accused had not settled things with him. Further according to him, his relations with the respondents were not cordial. Respondent Jagat Ram is his brother and living separately. He felt hurt by the conduct of his daughter and accused Suresh Kumar and stated that he did not want to see the prosecutrix any more. Further according to him, his relations with the respondents were not cordial. Respondent Jagat Ram is his brother and living separately. He felt hurt by the conduct of his daughter and accused Suresh Kumar and stated that he did not want to see the prosecutrix any more. He admitted that she lived in the house of accused Suresh Kumar for 1 1/2 years as husband and wife. Except this, there is no other evidence to substantiate the case of the prosecutrix. 5. ON the scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, we do not find that the allegations leveled by the prosecutrix against the respondents are believable. She had given a lot of improved version during her examination in the Court than that initially set in her complaint Ext.PA. There is no evidence regarding inducement and allurement for leaving the house of the father of the prosecutrix by the prosecutrix. There is no cogent and reliable evidence to hold her minor, but she is proved to have an age of discretion. Further, no role is proved to have been played by the respondents to assist or shield the main accused Suresh Kumar. The story of selling the prosecutrix to some other persons is also not believable nor there is any cogent evidence to corroborate any of the allegations. 6. THEREFORE, in the circumstances above, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are also born out from the evidence on record, therefore, it requires no interference. The appeal is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. 7. SEND down the records. Appeal is dismissed.