Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 461 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prakash Chand

2017-05-03

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Mandi, Camp at Sarkaghat, in Trial Reg. No. 503 of 2013, dated 25.02.2015, vide which, learned Trial Court acquitted the present respondent for commission of offences punishable under Section 376 (2) N and 506 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 17.06.2013, prosecutrix (PW-1), filed an application to SHO Police Station Sarkaghat to the effect that she was wife of PW-3 Ramesh Kumar and their marriage was solemnized six years ago and they have a male child about four years old. As per prosecutrix, she was suffering from some unknown disease and she was taking treatment at Gutkar, however, despite said treatment, she was not able to get any relief. Further as per prosecutrix, her sister PW-6 Reenu and her mother-in-law came to their house to inquire about her well being and they informed her that one ‘Chela’ namely, Prakash Chand, used to treat ailments like the one prosecutrix was suffering from. On the recommendation of her sister and her mother-in-law, she (prosecutrix) alongwith her in-laws went to house of Prakash ‘Chela’ where said ‘Chela’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) gave her some water to drink and after consuming the same, the prosecutrix started vomiting. Further as per the prosecutrix, accused disclosed to her that she was having ‘big beer’ inside her and advised her to come empty stomach for the purpose of ‘Chowki’ and not to consume oily food and also not to visit her relatives. As per prosecutrix, she attended ‘Chowki’ as per advice of the accused, who thereafter disclosed to her that there was something in their house which had to be removed. On said pretext, accused came to house of the prosecutrix and removed one ‘mouli’ from her bed. Further as per prosecutrix, during night time, he gave her some water to drink and committed sexual intercourse with her against her wish and also threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed this fact to anyone. As per the prosecutrix, accused and her husband were sleeping in one room, however, after her husband went to sleep, accused came to her. As per the prosecutrix, accused and her husband were sleeping in one room, however, after her husband went to sleep, accused came to her. Further as per prosecutrix, on 11.06.2013, accused again came to her in-laws’ house and during night, he again gave her some water to drink and during that night, he again raped her against her wish. Thereafter on 12.06.2013, accused again came to her in-laws house and gave her some water to drink and at about 12 ‘O’ Clock midnight, he shifted her under intoxication and took her in his vehicle. When the vehicle reached near Kandror bridge, prosecutrix gained consciousness and asked accused that she wanted to meet her son. Accused threatened her and forcibly took her to Chandigarh. Entire day, he kept her inside the vehicle and on next day, at about 1:00 a.m. he left her near the house of her parents at village Pantehara, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. 3. On the basis of said application by the prosecutrix, FIR Ext. PW-15/A was registered in Police Station Sarkaghat on 17.06.2013. Investigation was assigned by Superintendent of Police, Mandi to PW-11 Inspector Kamla Ghai, who moved an application for the medical examination of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’). During the course of investigation, places where accused had sexually molested the prosecutrix were got identified by her and site plan was accordingly prepared on the disclosure of prosecutrix. Thereafter file for further investigation was handed over to SHO, PS Sarkaghat as per the order of Superintendent of Police, Mandi. Matter was further investigated by PW-12 ASI Jagdish Kumar, Incharge, Police Post Hatli. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan Ext. PW-12/B with regard to the occurrence at place Kandrour. Vehicle in issue bearing registration No. HP-24-2075 was taken into possession and the accused was also got medically examined. 4. After the completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima-facie case was found against the accused, he was charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. Learned trial Court vide its judgment under challenge acquitted the accused by holding that prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 5. Learned trial Court vide its judgment under challenge acquitted the accused by holding that prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While arriving at the said conclusion, it was held by the learned trial Court that statement of prosecutrix demonstrated that there was inconsistency in the same. Learned trial Court held that prosecutrix in her application Ext. PW-1/A had mentioned that she was suffering from some unknown disease and it was her sister PW-6 Reenu who introduced her to accused, who thereafter in the guise of her treatment, raped her, however, the prosecutrix had not disclosed the first date on which the accused came to her inlaws house. Learned trial Court held that as per prosecutrix accused forcibly established physical relations with her for the first time on 11.06.2013 and thereafter on 12.06.2013, accused again committed rape with her in a vehicle after making her consume something. Learned trial Court further held that prosecutrix had also deposed that she gained consciousness at Kandrour and thereafter, accused took her to Chandigarh and accused committed rape with her at Chandigarh also against her wish. Learned trial Court further held that in Ext. PW-1/A, prosecutrix had nowhere disclosed that accused raped her at Kandrour or that accused was planning to sell her in Rajasthan for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- nor was there any whisper in Ext. PW-1/A that accused received telephonic call from her mother-in-law, his wife and the police of Police Post Baldwara. Learned trial Court held that all these facts were disclosed by the prosecutrix in her statement Ext. PW-1/C given before learned ACJM, Sarkaghat under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court further held that on 04.08.2013, prosecutrix had introduced another story to the effect that she was raped at a place near Kandrour bridge inside the vehicle whereas this was not disclosed by her to PW-11 Inspector Kamla Ghai but was disclosed later to PW-12 ASI Jagdish. Learned trial Court also held that a perusal of the site plan Ext. Learned trial Court also held that a perusal of the site plan Ext. PW-11/A which pertained to the house of in-laws of the prosecutrix demonstrated that there were four rooms alongwith a verandah and the place of occurrence was shown as mark A. Learned trial Court held that site plan demonstrated that in fact all the rooms of the house were inter-connected and in case the statement of prosecutrix was to be taken as a gospel truth that she was forcibly raped by accused 15-16 days prior to 11.06.2013, then the whisper of the accused and prosecutrix would have been heard by her husband and other family members who were sleeping in adjoining rooms, however, nothing was deposed to this effect by her husband PW-3 Ramesh Kumar. Learned trial Court also held that PW-17 HHC Ranbir Singh in his cross examination deposed that on 14.06.2013, prosecutrix had come to PP Hatli alongwith UP Pradhan PW-5 Prakash Chand, her husband PW-3 Ramesh Kumar, her father-in-law PW-2 Mansha Ram and her motherin- law and rapat No. 18 dated 14.06.2013 was entered in rojnamcha to this effect and prosecutrix had given statement that she had voluntarily gone after the accused and she was not abducted by the accused. Learned trial Court further held that this witness further stated that prosecutrix deposed that accused had not done anything wrong with her. Learned trial Court held that this rapat No. 18 had been intentionally withheld by the prosecution. Learned trial Court also held that as per PW-17, prosecutrix had not blamed accused for any wrong act. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that prosecutrix had deposed in the Court that on 13.06.2013, police made a call to the accused on his mobile and the accused had asked her to inform the police that she had married him (accused). Learned trial Court held that prosecutrix had also deposed that wife of accused had made a telephonic call and accused disclosed that he had not abducted any woman. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that mother of the prosecutrix PW-7 Jamna Devi had a totally different story to narrate and she had deposed that inlaws of prosecutrix disclosed to her that prosecutrix had run away with one Baba, however, missing report was lodged at Police Post Hatli on 13.06.2013. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that mother of the prosecutrix PW-7 Jamna Devi had a totally different story to narrate and she had deposed that inlaws of prosecutrix disclosed to her that prosecutrix had run away with one Baba, however, missing report was lodged at Police Post Hatli on 13.06.2013. Learned trial Court also held that PW-7 in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C deposed that prosecutrix came to her house at 1:00 a.m. in the intervening night of 13/14.06.2013 and disclosed that she was abducted by the accused, however, in her cross examination, she disowned her statement by saying that prosecutrix never disclosed to her that she (prosecutrix) was abducted by accused. On these bases, it was held by learned trial Court that testimony of the prosecutrix was totally unbelievable and rather it emerged that there was no cogent and reliable evidence to show that prosecutrix was ever found inside the vehicle of accused either at Kandrour or at Chandigarh. Learned trial Court also held that even on the basis of medical evidence, it could not be concluded that prosecutrix had been raped by the accused especially when there was nothing on record to demonstrate that prosecutrix was not having physical relations with her husband in between 14.06.2013 to 19.06.2013. Learned trial Court also held that as far as factum of extending threat to prosecutrix was concerned, there was no cogent and reliable evidence to this effect and said facts were neither disclosed by prosecutrix to PW-7 Jamna Devi, whom she (prosecutrix) met after her alleged abduction nor to Up Pradhan PW-5 Prakash Chand, whom she met on 14.06.2013 and she did not disclose such facts in PP Hatli where rapat No. 18 was recorded on the same day. On these bases, it was held by the learned trial Court that statement of prosecutrix was not inspiring confidence to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment so passed by learned trial Court, the State has filed this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as well as Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We have also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by learned trial Court. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment so passed by learned trial Court, the State has filed this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as well as Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We have also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by learned trial Court. 8. It is settled law that for the purpose of conviction of accused charged with committing the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, sole testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient provided the testimony of the prosecutrix is cogent, reliable and trustworthy and the same inspires confidence in the Court. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court demonstrates that it has been mentioned therein that the testimony of the prosecutrix in the present case is not worth inspiring confidence as there were contradictions in her statement and some corroborative evidence to lend credence to the same was lacking in the case. Therefore, we have now to ascertain as to whether the findings so returned by learned trial Court are borne out from the records of the case or same are perverse. 9. Complaint filed by the prosecutrix to the police at Police Station Sarkaghat is on record as PW-1/A on which no date is mentioned. However, an endorsement is mentioned on the same in which it is mentioned that FIR No. 163/13 has been registered on 17.06.2013, under Section 376 (2) N of IPC on the basis of said complaint. A perusal of the complaint demonstrates that it was mentioned therein that prosecutrix was married to Ramesh Kumar and was residing at village Barot since her marriage which took place six years back and that she was having a son. It was further mentioned in the said complaint that prosecutrix was having some medical problem and despite taking treatment from various doctors, the problem was not being successfully treated. It was further mentioned therein that on the advice of her sister, she met the accused who used to perform work of a ‘Chela’ in connection with her medical problem. It was further mentioned in the complaint that she (prosecutrix) met the accused as advised by her sister who told her that there was a “bada beer” inside her and asked her to follow the procedure prescribed by him to get rid of her problem. It was further mentioned in the complaint that she (prosecutrix) met the accused as advised by her sister who told her that there was a “bada beer” inside her and asked her to follow the procedure prescribed by him to get rid of her problem. It is further mentioned in the complaint that accused advised her not to eat oily food and also not to consume food in the house of relatives etc. As per prosecutrix, accused also told that there was something in her house which the accused had to remove after visiting their house. It is further mentioned that thereafter accused came to their house and removed the bed of prosecutrix from the room and removed one ‘mouli’ from the same. Thereafter he gave her some water to drink and during night time, he sexually assaulted her against her wish and also threatened her not to disclose the same to her relatives. It was further mentioned in the complaint that initially, the accused was sleeping in a room where her husband was sleeping but after her husband had gone to sleep, accused had came to her and forcibly sexually molested her. It was further mentioned in the complaint that even on 11.06.2013, accused stayed in their house and in the night hours, he gave her something to drink and after she became unconscious he molested her and thereafter in the night of 12.06.2013, he again gave her some water to drink and after all had gone to sleep he abducted her in his Jeep. When she gained conscious at a place near Kandrour Bridge she requested him to take her to her son but the accused took her to Chandigarh and kept her in the vehicle during day time and night of Wednesday and thereafter on the night of Thursday, at around 1:00 a.m. he left her on a road near the house of her parents. It is mentioned in the complaint that accused had also established physical relations with her at Chandigarh after making her unconscious. It was on the basis of said complaint that FIR No. 163 of 2013 was registered at Police Station Sarkaghat on 17.06.2013 itself at 6:15 hours. 10. There is also on record Ext. It is mentioned in the complaint that accused had also established physical relations with her at Chandigarh after making her unconscious. It was on the basis of said complaint that FIR No. 163 of 2013 was registered at Police Station Sarkaghat on 17.06.2013 itself at 6:15 hours. 10. There is also on record Ext. PW-1/C, another statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sarkaghat, dated 20.06.2013, in which, it was stated by the prosecutrix that she on the advice of her sister, in relation to her medical condition, met the accused who after advising her to follow particular procedure to get rid of her problem from which she was suffering, came to her house and removed one ‘mouli’ from her bed and during night hours, he gave her something to consume and thereafter she became unconscious and accused sexually molested her. It is mentioned in the said statement that prosecutrix and her son used to sleep in separate room and accused used to sleep alongwith her husband in the adjoining room. It is mentioned therein that accused used to threaten her again and again that he will do away with her life and life of her son. It is also mentioned that accused came to their house 2-3 times and thereafter, both she and her husband started having fits. On this, her motherin- law telephonically called accused to their house who asked them to bring a hen and thereafter Prakash (accused) again treated her on 11.06.2013 and during the course of treatment, he gave her something to drink and thereafter sexually molested her. It was mentioned that on 12.06.2013, he again came to their house at around 6:00 p.m. and on the said date also, he gave her something to drink and thereafter molested her and abducted her in an unconscious state of mind. It is further mentioned therein that when she gained consciousness near Kandrour bridge, she asked accused to leave her at her home, but accused told her that he was taking her to Chandigarh and thereafter he took her to Chandigarh and there also he molested her. It is further recorded in the statement that accused asked her to marry him but she refused and accused told her that he would send her to Rajasthan after two days to which also she objected. It is further recorded in the statement that accused asked her to marry him but she refused and accused told her that he would send her to Rajasthan after two days to which also she objected. She further stated that when her mother-in-law made a telephonic call to accused from Police Chowki Baldwara, accused by threatening her told her to say that both of them are happy with each other. It is further recorded in the statement that thereafter her family members made a telephonic call to accused and told that police has arrested his parents. It is further mentioned therein that thereafter accused asked her to go to her house and she told Prakash (accused) that as she was not having money, he should leave her at the place from where he had abducted her. It is further mentioned therein that thereafter Prakash made her drink some water and on the night of 13.06.2013, he dropped her at her parental house at around 1:00 a.m. 11. When prosecutrix entered the witness box as PW-1, she deposed that she was suffering from some unknown disease and despite treatment, there was no improvement in her condition. Her sister alongwith mother-in-law one day came to her house and told that one ‘chela’ named Prakash Chand used to treat such like ailments, on which she alongwith her sister’s mother-in-law went to village Baloh, where accused told that there was some big ‘Veer’ inside her and asked her to perform ‘saat Chowki’ in his temple. She further deposed that accused told her that there was something in her bed and he had go to her house to remove the same. She deposed that thereafter accused came to their house and removed one piece of ‘mouli’ from the corner of her bed. She deposed that during that night accused remained in their house and in the night, he made her drink a glass of water. She deposed that accused slept with her husband and other family members slept in their respective rooms and she slept in a separate room. She deposed that accused came to her room in the night and committed rape and threatened her to kill her and her son if she disclosed the matter to any one and also told that he would not cure her illness. She deposed that accused came to her room in the night and committed rape and threatened her to kill her and her son if she disclosed the matter to any one and also told that he would not cure her illness. She deposed that on 11.06.2013, accused came to their house on being called by her mother-in-law telephonically for the treatment of her husband. She further deposed that on 11.06.2013, at about 10/11:00 p.m. accused made her drink a glass of water and again committed rape with her. She further deposed that on 12.06.2013, at about 5/6:00 p.m., accused again came to their house and again made her consume a glass of water at about 11:00 p.m. due to which she became unconscious and accused took her from her house in the night and she gained consciousness near Kandrour. She further deposed that accused was talking with someone on telephone that he was taking her to Chandigarh. She further deposed that accused again committed rape with her in the vehicle and thereafter, he took her in the same vehicle to Chandigarh where she remained in the vehicle itself. She further deposed that during day time, her in-laws went to police station and police made a telephonic call to the accused on mobile and accused told her to tell police that both of them had married to each other. She also deposed that accused had shown her a dagger and threatened her. She deposed that police asked her to talk with her mother on mobile but accused did not allow her to talk with her mother. She further deposed that accused was talking with someone on mobile that he would sell her for Rs. 3,00,000/- in Rajasthan. She deposed that on the same day, her in-laws went to the house of accused alongwith her husband and wife of accused talked with him. She deposed that thereafter accused asked her to come back to her house and when she asked accused to drop her at her house, accused dropped her at her parental house on the road. She further deposed that she remained in her parental house on 13.06.2013 and on the next day, she was taken to Pradhan of village Bastawar and Pradhan took her to police post Baldwara. She further deposed that she remained in her parental house on 13.06.2013 and on the next day, she was taken to Pradhan of village Bastawar and Pradhan took her to police post Baldwara. She deposed that she could not give statement before the police on that day as she was mentally shocked and after 2-3 days, she lodged complaint Ext. PW-1/A in Police Station Sarkaghat. She deposed that her medical was conducted on the next day. She stated that her statement was also recorded by the Magistrate. She further deposed that she had shown spots to the police where accused had committed rape on her. In her cross examination, she deposed that she had made a statement before the police on 14.06.2013 that she had voluntarily gone and came back to her house of her own. Thereafter she clarified that on that day she was not feeling well. She also deposed that her treatment by the accused lasted for about 2-3 months. She denied that on 12.06.2013, no rape was committed by the accused. She also denied that no rape was committed by accused before 11.06.2013. She further deposed in her cross examination that the accused had not raped her in Chandigarh. She also stated in her cross examination that she had disclosed before the Magistrate that rape was committed by accused on her on 11.06.2013 and she was confronted with her statement Ext. PW-1/C wherein it was not so recorded. She further stated that she had disclosed before the Magistrate that accused had raped her in the vehicle near Kandrour and again she was confronted with her statement Ext. PW-1/C wherein it was not so recorded. She deposed in her cross examination that on 14.06.2013 she had disclosed to the police that no rape was committed by accused with her. She admitted it to be correct that said statement was given by her before the police in a sound state of mind and on that day, Pradhan Prakash Chand, her in-laws and her husband were with her. She also stated that now she was not suffering from the problem after getting treatment from some other ‘chela’. She further deposed that their house had eight rooms, four on ground floor and four on first floor. She admitted it to be correct that while sleeping, she used to bolt the door. She also stated that now she was not suffering from the problem after getting treatment from some other ‘chela’. She further deposed that their house had eight rooms, four on ground floor and four on first floor. She admitted it to be correct that while sleeping, she used to bolt the door. She stated that she used to sleep in a room on the first floor. She self stated that accused had instructed not to bolt the room in which she used to sleep and accused had taken a lot of money for her treatment. She denied that in fact accused had demanded money for her treatment and it was on that count, a false case was filed against the accused. 12. Father-in-law of the prosecutrix entered the witness box as PW-2. This witness deposed that prosecutrix was married with his son about six years back and they were having one son out of said wedlock. He also stated that prosecutrix was suffering from strange illness and she was not recovering despite treatment. He also stated that sister of the prosecutrix Reenu and her mother-in-law told them that one ‘Chela’ in village Baloh used to treat such like illness. He stated that thereafter he alongwith Premi Devi, Reenu, prosecutrix and one Gulaba Ram went to the temple of accused at village Baloh. This witness deposed that on the pretext of treating prosecutrix, accused came to their house and made prosecutrix drink a glass of water and she went to sleep in a separate room. He deposed that accused and his son went to sleep in a separate room. This witness further deposed that in the night around 12 ‘O’ Clock, child started weeping and when they went to see as to what had happened, prosecutrix was not found in the room and accused was also not in the room and even the vehicle of the accused was not there. He further deposed that as both of them could not be found, his wife made a telephonic call to the accused who told that prosecutrix was not with him. He further deposed that thereafter they went to Up Pradhan, who told that matter be reported next morning and on the next morning, he alongwith his wife, UP Pradhan Prakash Chand and Gulaba Ram went to report the matter to the police at Baldwara and lodged missing report of the prosecutrix. He further deposed that thereafter they went to Up Pradhan, who told that matter be reported next morning and on the next morning, he alongwith his wife, UP Pradhan Prakash Chand and Gulaba Ram went to report the matter to the police at Baldwara and lodged missing report of the prosecutrix. He further deposed that they also met the parents of accused and his wife and inquired about the accused from them who told that accused had not come to his house. He also deposed that on 13.06.2013, prosecutrix came to her parental house at about 1:00 a.m. and she was brought to his house by her parents and thereafter, they took the prosecutrix to UP Pradhan Prakash Chand, alongwith whom, they went to Police Post Baldwara. He further deposed that inquiry was made by the police from the prosecutrix but she was not in a sound state of mind and health. This witness further stated that thereafter prosecutrix lodged a complaint to the police and also disclosed to him about the acts committed upon her by the accused and that accused had threatened to kill her son and to sell her. In his cross examination, this witness admitted it to be correct that he went to Police Post Hatli on 14.06.2013. He denied that on 17.06.2013, he alongwith his wife pressurized the prosecutrix to give statement against the accused to falsely implicate him. He further stated in his cross examination that prosecutrix did not disclose about the commission of rape on 14.06.2013. He admitted it to be correct that it was not disclosed to him by the prosecutrix that rape was committed upon her by accused for the last 20 to 22 days. He deposed that prosecutrix disclosed to him only on 17.06.2013 about the rape having been committed upon her by the accused. 13. Husband of the prosecutrix entered the witness box as PW-3 and stated that accused was treating his wife who was suffering from some ailment and accused had come to their house to treat her and he took one piece of ‘mouli’ from the bed. He deposed that accused used to sleep with him in their house and after drinking a glass of water given by accused, he became unwell. He further deposed that on 13th accused took his wife during the night and matter was reported to the police. He deposed that accused used to sleep with him in their house and after drinking a glass of water given by accused, he became unwell. He further deposed that on 13th accused took his wife during the night and matter was reported to the police. In his cross examination, he denied that his wife had voluntarily gone with accused. He denied that on 13.06.2013, his wife had gone to the house of Reenu. He stated that they used to sleep without bolting the door and other family members also used to do the same. He stated that his wife had not disclosed to him that accused had committed rape on her. He deposed that he could not tell how he came to know that his wife was raped by the accused. 14. PW-4 Gulaba Ram also deposed in the Court that on 13.06.2013, his sister Kamla telephonically informed him that accused had abducted the prosecutrix and she requested him to accompany them to police post. He deposed that thereafter he alongwith his sister, Up Pradhan, Kamla Devi, and Mansa Ram went to police post Hatli (Baldwara) where the matter was reported. He further deposed that they alongwith police went to house of the accused but prosecutrix was not found there. He deposed that wife of accused tried to contact him on mobile phone but his mobile phone was switched off. He deposed that thereafter prosecutrix was dropped by accused on the road at place Pantehra. He also deposed that prosecutrix had disclosed to the police that she was taken to Chandigarh by the accused. 15. Statement of PW-5 Prakash Chand is also to the same effect. However, it is relevant that in his cross examination this witness admitted it to be correct that on 14.06.2013, prosecutrix had disclosed to the police that she had voluntarily gone with the accused and had come back at her own. 16. Mother of the prosecutrix entered the witness box as PW-7 and she deposed that during summer days, they were informed by in-laws of prosecutrix that she (prosecutrix) had run away with one Baba. She deposed that she do not know the name of that Baba and at around 1:00 a.m. in the night, prosecutrix called her and she opened the door and slapped her twice or thrice. She further deposed that thereafter they called her mother-in-law. She deposed that she do not know the name of that Baba and at around 1:00 a.m. in the night, prosecutrix called her and she opened the door and slapped her twice or thrice. She further deposed that thereafter they called her mother-in-law. She also deposed that her son took prosecutrix to the house of Up Pradhan in the morning. In her cross examination, this witness deposed that she did not disclose to the police that on 14.06.2013, prosecutrix told her that she was abducted by the accused and was also dropped by him. 17. Dr. Kanika Kaushal, who had medically examined the prosecutrix entered the witness box as PW-8 and she proved on record MLC issued by her as Ext. PW-8/B. 18. Inspector Kamla Ghai, entered the witness box as PW-11 whereas ASI Jagdish Kumar entered the witness box as PW-12. HHC Ranbir Singh entered the witness box as PW-17 and in his cross examination, he admitted it to be correct that prosecutrix had given statement that accused had not done anything wrong with her and rapat No. 18, dated 14.06.2013 was entered in rojnamcha to the effect that prosecutrix had given statement that she had voluntarily gone after the accused and she was not abducted by the accused. This witness deposed that when statement of prosecutrix was recorded by him, at that time, Up Pradhan Prakash Chand, mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband of the prosecutrix were present. He deposed that prosecutrix had given her statement in sound state of mind. 19. Now when we appreciate ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses, it is apparently evident that after the prosecutrix was dropped near the house of her parents on the intervening night of 13/14.06.2013 at about 1:00 a.m. and thereafter when she went to police post for the first time on 14.06.2013, she had made a statement to the effect that she had voluntarily gone with the accused and also returned back of her own volition. This factum is borne out from the cross examination of the prosecutrix herself as well as from the testimony of PW-17 Ranvir Singh. 20. We have already referred to the complaint filed by the prosecutrix initially, on the basis of which, FIR was lodged on 17.06.2013 as well as to her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and her deposition in the Court as PW-1. 20. We have already referred to the complaint filed by the prosecutrix initially, on the basis of which, FIR was lodged on 17.06.2013 as well as to her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and her deposition in the Court as PW-1. A perusal of all these demonstrates that there are lot of improvements and contradictions in the complaint, statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and her deposition made in the Court of law as PW-1 which renders the version of the prosecutrix to be highly unbelievable. The prosecutrix wants this Court to believe that in an intoxicated position, she was abducted by the accused from the house of her in-laws, wherein besides the prosecutrix and her minor son, her husband and her in-laws were putting up and no one came to know of this fact. Not only this, she also wants this Court to believe that before the said abduction of the prosecutrix, she was sexually assaulted by the accused against her wish in the house of her in-laws during night hours and none noticed this fact. It is prosecutrix’s own case that it is not as if accused used to sleep with her in her room but accused used to sleep with her husband in a separate room. As per prosecutrix after her husband went to sleep, accused came to her room and sexually molested her. She further stated that when accused sexually molested her, her minor son used to sleep in other room. However, when we peruse the testimony of PW-2 Mansha Ram, father-in-law of prosecutrix, he has deposed that minor son of prosecutrix used to sleep with her and on the fateful night they were woken up by the cries of minor child and when they went to see as to what had happened, they found prosecutrix missing and later found that accused was also missing with his vehicle. 21. In complaint Ext. PW-1/A, it is not mentioned that after the accused had abducted the prosecutrix on the night of 12.06.2013 and after she gained consciousness near Kandrour bridge, he had raped her at Kandrour bridge. Besides this, it is not mentioned in the said complaint that while at Chandigarh, she heard accused talking with someone that the prosecutrix was to be taken to Rajasthan and there she was to be sold for Rs. 3,00,000/-. Besides this, it is not mentioned in the said complaint that while at Chandigarh, she heard accused talking with someone that the prosecutrix was to be taken to Rajasthan and there she was to be sold for Rs. 3,00,000/-. Now when we refer to her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, there are improvements made to the effect that as per the prosecutrix, after she was abducted by the accused on the night of 12.06.2013 and taken to Chandigarh by accused, he asked her to marry him and when she refused to do so, he told her that he would send her to Rajasthan after two days. 22. Similarly, it is not so recorded in complaint Ext. PW-1/A that while at Chandigarh, any telephonic call was received by the accused from mother-in-law of the prosecutrix and accused threatened the prosecutrix to inform her motherin- law that both of them had married to each other however this finds mention in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sarkaghat. 23. It is not mentioned in the complaint Ext. PW-1/A that at Chandigarh, accused had asked the prosecutrix to go back to her house and prosecutrix told him that she was not having money and therefore, he should drop her at the place from where he had abducted her but it is so mentioned in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 24. Now when we compare the complaint and statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C with her deposition made in the court of law, it is evident from the cross examination of the prosecution that she not only admitted that she had stated before the police on 14.06.2013 that she had voluntarily gone with the accused and had returned back on her own, she also admitted it to be correct that no rape was committed on her by the accused at Chandigarh. 25. 25. When we compare these contradicting statements of the prosecutrix including her initial complaint with the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses especially UP Pradhan Prakash Chand (PW-5) and PW-17 Ranvir Singh, it is apparent that in fact on 14.06.2013 statement was made by the prosecutrix at concerned police post that she had gone alongwith accused of her own and returned back at her own will and it was subsequently that she was forced, may be by her in-laws or by her husband, to lodge complaint against the accused. 26. The testimony of the husband of the prosecutrix is both unnatural and unreliable. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has deposed that accused came to his house to treat his wife and he used to sleep with him in his house and that on 13th he took his wife during night hours and the matter was reported to the police and then his parents visited the house of accused and thereafter he did not remember as to what happened. Not only this, in his cross examination, this witness deposed that his wife never disclosed to him that accused had committed rape on her. It is slightly difficult to believe that accused who as per prosecution was sleeping with husband of prosecutrix in his house was able to sexually molest his (PW-3’s) wife on more than two occasions and PW-3 never came to know about anything. Similarly, the testimony of her mother PW-7 Jamna Devi also fortifies the fact that prosecutrix had on her own volition gone with the accused as this witness in her examination-in-chief deposed that during summer days, she was informed by in-laws of prosecutrix that prosecutrix had run away with one Baba and when prosecutrix called her at around 1:00 a.m. in the night, she opened the door and slapped her twice or thrice and thereafter prosecutrix did not talk with them, neither did she had any meal. This witness also deposed that thereafter they called mother-in-law of prosecutrix and her son took the prosecutrix to the house of UP Pradhan in the morning. In her cross examination, this witness also deposed that she had not disclosed to the police that prosecutrix had told her on the night on 13/14.06.2013 that she was abducted by accused and was dropped by him. 27. In her cross examination, this witness also deposed that she had not disclosed to the police that prosecutrix had told her on the night on 13/14.06.2013 that she was abducted by accused and was dropped by him. 27. From what we have discussed above, it is apparent that on the basis of testimony of the prosecution witnesses as well as documents placed on record by the prosecution, the prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that in fact the accused had taken away the prosecutrix from the house of her in-laws on the intervening night of 12/13.06.2013 or that he had outraged the modesty of prosecutrix against her will. On the contrary, it is apparent and evident from the statements of prosecution witnesses including the statement of UP Pradhan and PW-17 Ranvir Singh that on 14.06.2013, prosecutrix had stated at Police Post Baldwara that she had gone alongwith accused of her own free will and thereafter returned back of her own free will and subsequently she was forced, may be by her in-laws or husband to lodge a false complaint against the accused. 28. In these circumstances, especially when the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and when testimony of prosecutrix is neither cogent nor trustworthy nor the same seems to be reliable, it cannot be said that learned trial Court erred in acquitting the accused for commission of offences with which he was charged. 29. There is no material on record placed by the prosecution from which it can be inferred that any threats etc. were induced by the accused to the prosecutrix so as to render the accused liable for being punished for commission of offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. There is no cogent evidence on record that prosecutrix was intimidated by the accused as has been alleged by the prosecution. 30. Besides this, we have also carefully gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and a perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court demonstrates that the entire evidence produced on record by the prosecution had been minutely taken into consideration by the learned trial Court and after a careful consideration of the same, learned trial Court had returned the finding of acquittal in favour of accused. 31. 31. Therefore, while concurring with the findings of acquittal returned by learned trial Court, we dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any merit, so also pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any.