IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 228 of 2000 Date of Decision : November 16, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Anoop Singh & Anr. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R. B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A. G. For the respondents: Mr. M. A. Khan, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 15.7.1996, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 13.12.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi, in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1997 titled as State of H.P. vs. Anoop Singh & Anr., accused stand acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that prosecutrix (PW-6) daughter of Smt. Kamla Devi (PW-5) was married to accused Anoop Singh (A-1). Marriage took place sometimes in the year early 1995 and since 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the accused treated the prosecutrix with cruelty she divorced him on 29.12.1995 and left his company to reside with her mother. It is also the case of the prosecution that Smt. Kamla Devi (PW-5) had four daughters and three sons and prosecutrix who was born on 29.5.1979 was the youngest daughter. Birth certificate (Ext.PW-3/A) issued by the Gram Panchayat is on record to this effect. It is further the case of the prosecution that from village Panartu prosecutrix had gone to village Khadar to drop milk in the early hours of the morning at 6.00 A.M. on 15.7.1996. On her return journey, she boarded a bus from village Khadar upto village Panjalang. From Panjalang she was to walk upto her village Panartu. In the bus, A-1 & A-2, who were sitting in the bus stopped the prosecutrix from alighting the bus at Panjalang. When the bus reached at a place called Lad they directed her to alight from the bus. From there she was taken by the accused in a taxi to village Bharol and further to the house of A- 1. PW-5 allegedly lodged report with the police but since no action was taken, therefore she filed complaint (Ext.PW-2/A) dated 30.7.1996 in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar who directed the police to register the case. Accordingly, FIR (Ext.PW-2/B) dated 8.8.1996 was registered at Police Station Jogindernagar under Sections 363, 366, 376/34 IPC. On 11.8.1996 3 prosecutrix was recovered from the house of A-1 and handed over to her mother. Accused was got medically examined by Dr. M. K. Rana (PW-1) who gave his report (Ext.PW-1/B). As per the prosecutrix, after accused took her to his house she was subjected to rape by A-1 every night till the time of her recovery. With the completion of the investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. A-1 Anoop Singh was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 34 & 376 IPC and A-2 Lohka @ Harnam Singh was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 8 witnesses and the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC were also recorded. 5. Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences, hence the presence appeal. 6. On the question of age of the prosecutrix, it is pertinent to note that Dr. M. K. Rana (PW-1), upon medical examination found the age of the prosecutrix to be 18 years. Prosecutrix has not stated anything about her age. Prosecutrix does not give her date of birth. Similar is the version of her mother (PW-5). Before us there is not much contest on the 4 question of age of the prosecutrix. As on the date of the alleged offence undisputedly she was more than 18 years of age. Birth certificate proved by Sh. Bhuri Singh (PW-3) is of not much use for the prosecution either. Certificate stands issued on the basis of the Parivar Register and not the register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886. In any event PW-3 admits that entry made in the register is not by him but by some other person whom he does not know. There is no legal evidence to this effect. 7. It is admitted case of the parties that prosecutrix was married to A-1 in the year 1995. Though prosecution witnesses state that marriage between the parties had broken down and was dissolved by a decree of divorce, however we find that there is no legal evidence to support this fact. Divorce Deed in original, or certified copy thereof, is not placed on record. Further there is nothing on record to substantiate the statement of the prosecutrix that her husband used to treat her with cruelty. All this knocks down the foundation of the prosecution case. 8. Prosecutrix admits that in the bus there were about 10 to 15 passengers yet when the accused prevented her from getting down at village Panjalang she did not raise any hue and cry. She further admits that at village Lad she took tea and at that place 3-4 5 persons were also present. Even there she did not raise any alarm or disclose it to anyone that she was being forcibly taken away by the accused. A-1 was her husband. He took the prosecutrix to his house. There she continued to remain with him from 15.7.1996 upto 11.8.1996. Prosecutrix admits that in the village there are houses of other persons and she also visited the houses of the relatives of A-1 along with him. Surprisingly even there she did not raise any hue and cry or disclose the fact that she had been either forcibly brought to the matrimonial house or subjected to rape by her husband. No signs of injury were found on her body at the time of her medical examination carried out by PW-1. Her clothes were not torn. It is not her case that throughout she was under any threats, or intimidation. Statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence rendering the prosecution case to be false. 9. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present 6 appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (R. B. Misra) Judge. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 16, 2010. (rana)