Cr.M.No.313-MA of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. State of Punjab APPELLANT VERSUS Ram Bahadur RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Shri Manoj Bajaj, Additional A.G. Punjab for the State. MEHTAB S.GILL, J. We will be deciding Cr.M.No.313-MA of 2009 and Criminal Revision No.1380 of 2009 by this common order as they arise out of the same judgment/order dated 31.1.2009 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar. Learned counsel for the State has argued that on 14.3.2008 respondent enticed the prosecutrix and asked her to reach K.C.Hotel, Nawanshahar, as he wanted to pay the installment of Rs.1000/-, of the loan he had taken from her. The prosecutrix reached the hotel at 1 p.m. She went to Room Cr.M.No.313-MA of 2009 -2- No.203. Respondent, instead of returning her the money, pushed her on to the bed and raped her. She was kept in the room till 3.45 p.m. Thereafter she went to Village Langeri and narrated the incident to her mother. The learned trial Court has erred in making it a case of consent. The learned Court did not take into consideration that the prosecutrix was enticed to come to the hotel. We have heard the learned counsel for the State and Shri Vipin Mahajan, Advocate who has filed a revision petition and have perused the impugned judgment. Going through the judgment of the learned trial Court we find that it was right in coming to the conclusion that it is a case of consent. The prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief has not spoken a word about the string of her Salwar being broken or opened by the respondent. Further, when the prosecutrix was allegedly being raped, she did not raise an alarm, nor did she create hue and cry during the alleged rape in the room of K.C. Hotel nor when she left at 3.45 p.m. The prosecutrix admitted that she did not have good relations with her husband and a divorce petition was pending, which was filed by her before the alleged occurrence. The Superintendent Jail who appeared as PW-8 has stated in his cross-examination, that after going through the Mulakat Register Exs.D1 to D.4, it comes out that at Sr.No.135, the name of the prosecutrix is mentioned and she had come to meet the respondent. In another entry No.155, the prosecutrix met the respondent in jail and mentioned her relationship to be the sister-in-law of the respondent. Prosecutrix would not have gone to meet the respondent in jail for this very case, if she did not have any previous relationship with him. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Cr.M.No.313-MA of 2009 -3- Cr.M.No.313-MA is dismissed. Consequently Criminal Revision No.1380 of 2009 is also dismissed. ( MEHTAB S.GILL ) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) September 2, 2009 JUDGE GD