Crl. Appeal No.603-DBA of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Appeal No.603-DBA of 2001 Date of Decision:-19.05.2010 State of Punjab ....Appellant. Versus Nand Kumar ....Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. D.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the Appellant. Mr. Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate for Respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. State is in appeal aggrieved against the judgment dated 7.2.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala acquitting respondent for an offence under section 452 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was set in motion on the statement of Shakila wife of Jagga Khan made on 3rd September 1999. She has stated that on 25th of August 1999 at about 10-11 PM, she had fever and her husband was not at home. She called Birbal her neighbour to call a doctor. Dr. Nand Kumar @ Nandi 1 Crl. Appeal No.603-DBA of 2001 son of Ram Avtar was called who admnistered some medicine and went away. Next day at about 1.00 PM said doctor again came and told the complainant that she was running high fever and needs injection. He gave her two injections against her wishes. She became little unconscious and was unable to speak, but she could see everything. The doctor bolted the door from inside and committed rape on her and went away. Jitan her sister and Shanti, a neighbour came. She told the entire story to them. They tied the string of her salvar. Since her husband was out of station, she remained confined to the house and reported the matter to the police on arrival of her husband on 3.9.1999. The prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Sunita Goel on 3.9.1999. Dr. Sunita Goel has appeared as PW-2 and has deposed that patient had taken bath and changed her clothes. No mark of injury was found on the genetalia area. She further deposed that the clothes worn by her at the time of occurrence were not produced before her. The prosecutrix appeared as PW-3 who supported her version given to the police. In cross examination she deposed that salvar and shirt worn by her at the time of occurrence were given to the police without washing and that she remained on the bed for about 24 hours and got up only at about 1.00 PM next day. She could not disclose the colour of the pant and shirt allegedly worn by the accused. She also admitted that the accused never visited her house prior to occurrence. She admitted that her husband had informed one Surjit Singh Kaler about the ocurrence who came to their house 2 Crl. Appeal No.603-DBA of 2001 thereafter. He accompanied them to the police and to the doctor for medical examination. She has further deposed that Surjit Singh Kaler has told her husband that he has found the respondent guilty. She denied the suggestion that respondent was a witness against Surjit Singh Kaler in a murder case. PW-4 Jitan is the sister of the prosecutrix. She deposed that about 9 months ago in the night time, she along with Sita were sitting in the Deodi of Birbal and when they knocked the door of Shakila, accused opened the door and ran away. Her testimony contradicts the version of the prosecutrix in respect of the timing of the occurrence. As per the PW-4, the time of incident is night time whereas as per the prosecutrix it is noon time. She has admitted that Sarpanch Surjit Singh was with the police when her statement was recorded. Statement of Shakila was also recorded at that time. PW-5 is Jagga Khan whose statement is in respect of manner of occurrence alleged by the prosecution. Shanti @ Sita the alleged another person, who was stated to be present along with Jitan has been examined by the defence as DW-1. She has deposed that it is Surjit Singh Kaler who is bent upon harming the accused due to enemity and he approached her father and asking for giving money for giving false evidence. She has deposed that Shakila and her husband are serving with Surjit Singh Kaler, Sarpanch of the village. Apart from suggesting that she is giving false statement, it is not suggested to her that Surjit Singh Kaler has no enemity with the accused or that the case has not been registered at his instance. 3 Crl. Appeal No.603-DBA of 2001 The learned trial court has considered the entire evidence to give a finding that the offences under section 452 and 376 are not made out. We have gone through the entire evidence on record and find that the reasoning given by the trial court cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted in any manner. Consequently we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial court. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE May 19, 2010 Vinay *** 4