IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.627 of 1996 Date of decision: 21.4.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Moti Ram … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. For the respondents: Mr.Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 1.11.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, in Session Trial No.17-S/7 of 1994 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The prosecution story is that the prosecutrix had gone to a jungle near Parwanoo to fetch fuel wood. At about 3-4 p.m. the accused met her in the jungle and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix on returning home disclosed this fact to her mother Smt.Premo Devi on the next morning i.e. on January 9, 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 1994. Thereafter, the mother took the prosecutrix to the Police Station, Parwanoo where FIR Ext.PF was lodged. Thereafter, the matter was investigated by PW-8 Padam Chand and the SHO, Police Station, Parwanoo and H.C. Jagtar Singh. The prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr.Poonam Maria. Her radiological age was also got assessed from Dr.G.D. Khullar on the basis of the X-Rays Exts.PD/1 to PD/5 and it was found that her skeletal age was 12 ½ to 15 years. Accused was arrested and he was examined by PW-1 Dr.Anupam Chaturvedi. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed and since the case was triable by the Court of Sessions the same was committed to the Sessions Court. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that neither the prosecutrix nor her mother have appeared as witnesses in the case. We find from the record that both the prosecutrix and her mother were given up by the prosecution on the ground that they were not traceable. No conviction in the case of rape, like the present one, can be based without recording the statement of the prosecutrix or her mother because admittedly the prosecutrix only told her mother about the occurrence on the next day. The father 3 of the prosecutrix appeared in the witness box as PW-2. He also did not state that he had come to know either from the prosecutrix or from his wife that the accused had sexually assaulted the prosecutrix. In fact PW-4 stated that a few days prior to the alleged incident the parents of the accused and the parents of the prosecutrix were having a talk about the marriage of the prosecutrix with the accused. In these circumstances, the non- examination of the prosecutrix and her mother is fatal to the prosecution case. In view of the above discussion, the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. 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 ), J. April 21, 2010 ( Rajiv Sharma ), J. PV