IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.76 of 1995 Decided on: 21st April, 2009 State of H.P …..Appellant. VERSUS Sukhu alias Sukh Ram …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Appellant: Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General For the Respondent: Shri Rupinder Singh, Advocate Deepak Gupta,Judge (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the Learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions Trial No.32-N/7 of 1993, decided on 8.4.1994, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 7.9.1992 the prosecutrix had gone to her ‘obra’ (out house where normally cattle are tethered) in the village to feed and water her cattle. According to her, she was carrying a bundle of hay which was to be placed on the floor of the obra to soak up the moisture. 3. The accused Sukhu, alias Sukh Ram, was allegedly hiding in the obra. He asked the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with him. She refused to do so and then the accused forcibly removed her salwar and his own pyjama and committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. The prosecutrix cried for help but nobody came to her rescue. The accused then ran away and when he was running away, he was seen by one Sh.Chattar Singh who was standing in front of his house which is situated just opposite the obra across a small nalla. The prosecutrix returned to her house. 4. Chattar Singh informed Sh.Kaka Ram, husband of the prosecutrix that he had seen the accused running from his obra. Her husband came home in the evening. On reaching home he asked his wife what had happened. She then told her husband that she had been raped by the accused. Next day the report was lodged with the police and FIR recorded. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. The doctor opined that there was evidence of the prosecutrix having had sexual intercourse in the past 72 hours. However, no sign of any injury or struggle was found on her body. 5. On completion of the investigation, a challan was filed and the accused was summoned. He was charged for having committed the aforesaid offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, the accused has been acquitted. Hence the present appeal. 6. The prosecutrix while appearing in the witness box has virtually repeated her story. There are glaring contradictions in the prosecution case. According to Kaka Ram, husband of the prosecutrix, one day before the date of incident, he had placed hay on the floor of the cattle shed as such there was no requirement of the prosecutrix carrying hay to lay the same on the next date. Hay on the floor of the cattle shed is not replaced everyday. Therefore, her deposition does not have a ring of truth. 7. The version of the prosecutrix that the accused had forcible intercourse with her cannot be believed for the reason that there are no signs of struggle on her body nor there is any evidence to show that the accused suffered any injury. The prosecutrix is a married lady aged 26 years and if she had resisted the advances of the accused there were bound to be some injuries on her person and also on the person of the accused. Her version that she could not resist because the accused had caught hold of her by both her arms cannot be believed. If she had been held by both her arms, the accused could not have simultaneously removed her salwar and his own pyjama. 8. PW/3 Chattar Singh shatters the case of the prosecution. According to him, he had never informed the husband of the prosecutrix that the accused was running away from the obra. He states that he had informed the husband that he had seen the accused and the prosecutrix in each others company at a water source about 20 metres away from the obra. The aforesaid evidence clearly shows that the prosecutrix had willingly consented to have sex with the accused. However, when Chattar Singh reported the matter to her husband that he had seen her in the company of the accused, she has concocted this false story. It is important to note that she did not disclose the fact of her being subjected to rape to any person till the evening. She did not disclose this fact to her husband also. It was only when her husband asked her what had happened that she told him that she had been raped. This story is patently false. No reliance can be placed on the statement of the prosecutrix. 9. In view of above discussions, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. (V.K.Ahuja) April 21, 2009 Judge (m)