Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 802 (HP)

Rachna Devi v. Jitender Kumar

2016-05-16

RAJIV SHARMA, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 8.3.2013, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal (camp at Karsog) in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2011, whereby respondent No. 1-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence under Sections 506 and 376 IPC, has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 10.11.2009, complaint Ext. PW-1/A was received at PS Karsog through SP Mandi. According to the averments made in the complaint, accused had forcibly sexually assaulted the prosecutrix and threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed about the incident to anybody. Prosecutrix became pregnant on account of sexual assault of accused. It was also alleged that she told about pregnancy to accused who promised to marry her but with the passage of time, accused refused to fulfill the promise of marriage. Accused refused to marry her due to caste factor. Complainant also complained to Police Station, Karsog, however, no action was taken against the accused. She was directed to pursue the case before SDM Karsog. On 27.10.2009, she made a representation to the SDM Karsog for necessary action. Thereafter, case was registered. Investigation took place. Police visited the spot. Prosecutrix gave birth to a child on 10.11.2009 at Kamla Nehru Hospital Shimla. Blood samples of prosecutrix, accused and the newly born baby were taken for DNA test and sent to FSL Junga. Accused was arrested. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. He pleaded innocence. Trial Court acquitted the accused as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the accused has been wrongly acquitted by the learned trial Court. 5. Mr. Arun. K. Sharma, Advocate has supported Judgment dated 8.3.2013. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 (name withheld) is the prosecutrix. She testified that she was undergoing computer training at Sunni in the year 2009. She had studied upto 10+2. She had gone to the computer centre Sunni in the month of February, 2009. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 (name withheld) is the prosecutrix. She testified that she was undergoing computer training at Sunni in the year 2009. She had studied upto 10+2. She had gone to the computer centre Sunni in the month of February, 2009. She did not remember the date. She was returning after attending the centre. She was alone. Accused followed her and started talking to her. When they reached near Jungle, accused forcibly dragged her to bushes. She shouted for help. Accused gagged her mouth. Accused raped her. He threatened to kill her in case she revealed the incident to any person. He also promised to marry her. She did not narrate the incident to any person. After one month she found that she was pregnant. She told the factum of pregnancy to the accused. Accused again assured to marry her. Accused finally refused to marry her when she was eight months pregnant saying that she belonged to a lower caste. She told this fact to her elder sister Meena, who narrated the incident to her parents. She came to Karsog Police Station. Police did not register the case. She delivered a child on 10.11.2009 at Kamla Nehru Hospital. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the application, Ext. PW-1/A, was written by her brother-in-law. She mentioned in the Ext. PW-1/A that the accused followed her when she was returning back from the computer centre. Accused dragged her to bushes. She shouted for help. She could not read English properly. (Confronted with Ext. PW-1/A, wherein it is not so recorded). She has not narrated the incident to anybody after February, 2009. She admitted that she knew about her welfare. 8. Chiranji Lal (PW-2) testified that his daughter told him 20-25 days prior to her delivery that prosecutrix was pregnant from accused. He came to Police Station. Police told that FIR would not be registered and he should get an order from the SDM. He went to the higher officials. Prosecutrix told him on inquiry that accused had promised to marry her. Hence, she had not told the fact to him. His daughter produced her discharge slip Mark A and discharge of her child Mark B. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that a common road links their village and the village of the accused to Sunni. Prosecutrix told him on inquiry that accused had promised to marry her. Hence, she had not told the fact to him. His daughter produced her discharge slip Mark A and discharge of her child Mark B. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that a common road links their village and the village of the accused to Sunni. He also admitted that the path was frequented by many people. 9. Leela Dhar (PW-4) has issued birth certificate of the prosecutrix Ext.PW-4/A. 10. Dr. Prem Lal (PW-7) has examined the accused and issued MLC Ext. PW-7/B. 11. Dr. Puneet Sharma (PW-8) has taken blood samples of the accused, prosecutrix and the baby of the prosecutrix. 12. Inspector Vijay Sen (PW-11) in his cross-examination admitted that the place of incident shown to him was a main passage. 13. Age of the prosecutrix, as per Ext. PW-4/A, is 20.1.1987. Thus, in February, 2009, she was well above 22 years of age. Accused was aged 19 years. According to the prosecutrix, in the month of February, 2009, she was going back from computer centre. Accused followed her. He dragged her to bushes and committed rape upon her. She became pregnant. She asked accused to marry her. However, accused refused to marry her. Thereafter, in the eighth month of pregnancy, she told her sister Meena about the incident. Meena narrated the incident to her parents. It is not believable that the parents of the girl could be oblivious to the pregnancy carried by the prosecutrix. She has delivered the baby on 10.11.2009. It has come on record that the path where she was allegedly raped was frequented by people. It was a busy road/path. Version of the prosecutrix that she shouted for help but nobody came to her rescue, can not be believed since it was a busy path. Had she shouted for help, it would have drawn the attention of the people on the path. Prosecutrix should have told the incident to her parents instead of waiting for eight months after pregnancy. There is delay in registration of the FIR, which has not been explained. Reasons assigned by the prosecutrix that she was put under threat by the accused can not be believed. She knew about her welfare. She knew about the consequences. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, can not be termed as perverse. Reasons assigned by the prosecutrix that she was put under threat by the accused can not be believed. She knew about her welfare. She knew about the consequences. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, can not be termed as perverse. 14. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 15. Accordingly, we find no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The appeal is thus dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of. Bail bonds of the accused are discharged.