1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.677 of 2000 Decided on September 30, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Man Singh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG For the Respondent: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. Bhim Raj, Advocates.. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 17.6.2000, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla Camp at Rohru, in Sessions Trial No. 27-S/7 of 1999, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence under Sections 363,366 and 376 IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that victim-prosecutrix, a minor, below 16 years of age, was taken by the accused from the house of her sister Kalawati at village Sandhasu with the intention to compel her to marry him and after being taken on 5.11.1998, Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 she was kept by the accused and she as recovered on 15.11.1998 and the case was registered on 16.11.1998. The victim-prosecutrix was examined by PW-3 Dr Vinay Bhardwaj and her dental age was assessed between 12-13 years. In order to ascertain her skeletal age, Dr.P.C.Gupta, Radiologist had found her skeletal age in between 12-14 years and during the stay of the victim-prosecutrix, PW-4 with the accused, was sexually assaulted. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 16 prosecution witnesses, whereas, through his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC accused had denied the prosecution case. Defence examined three witnesses. 4. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that PW-1, Lachu Ram, father of the victim-prosecutrix, had admitted that he was married in the year 1971 and PW-2, the elder sister of victim-prosecutrix, was born to them within one year of the marriage and also admitted that she was 25-26 years of age. It was also admitted by PW-1 that the victim-prosecutrix was born after 6-7 years of the birth of PW-2. Accordingly, it appears that the victim-prosecutrix was born in the year 1978 or almost in the year 1979, therefore on the date of occurrence, she was 19-20 years of age. 5. PW-5, Khindu Ram, maternal uncle of the victim- prosecutrix has admitted that his sister was married to PW-1 Lachhu Ram, in the year 1971 and within one year of the marriage, PW-2 was born. PW-12, Laiq Ram, has stated that he remained posted as Secretary, Grma Panchayat, Bamta w.e.f July, 1996 to December, 1998 and the entries in the Parivar register finds 3 mention the date of birth of victim prosecutrix as 4.6.1986. This version is being falsified as per the testimony of PW-1, who stated that he got married in the year 1971 and after 6-7 years, victim prosecutrix was born. Thus, it appears that the victim prosecutrix was born in the year 1978 which could be inferred from the version of PW-1 and PW-5, discussed above. 6. Therefore, it could be safely inferred that victim prosecutrix was 19 to 20 years of age when she was taken by the accused on the fateful day and during said stay with the accused, she spent good time. Further, she has not made any endeavour to escape herself from the clutches of accused/respondent and also did not make endeavour to inform any of the persons of the locality that she had forcibly been taken by the respondent and had been kept against her wishes and being subjected to sexual assault. There was no sign that she has not consented for physical interaction with the accused respondent and there is not an iota of evidence revealing from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and materials on record that the victim prosecutrix was not a consenting party. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the girl was taken by the accused against her wishes. More so, she had not made any endeavour to make resistance if she was being sexually assaulted against her wishes. 7. In the facts and circumstances, the victim prosecutrix, being major, as such the evidences, indicated above, are not corroborated with each other. As such, the prosecution has failed to being home guilt to the accused. Therefore, in our considered view also, we find no scope for interference in the impunged 4 judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The criminal appeal being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. 8. The bail bonds, furnished by the accused/respondent, are discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. 30th September, 2010 ( V.K.Sharma ), J. (sl)