Criminial Revision No. 2437 of 2009(O&M) -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminial Revision No. 2437 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision : 29.10.2009 Sweta .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Bipin Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. Criminal Misc. No.46845 of 2009 For the affidavit-supported reasons indicated in the application, the Criminal Misc. application is allowed and the delay of 30 days in fling the appeal is condoned. Criminal Revision No.2437 of 2009 The learned Trial Court noticed a number of circumstances on the basis whereof an opinion was formed that prosecutrix was in love with respondent-accused Narender. In that context, it was noticed that prosecutrix had travelled a long distance during the period 3.11.2007 to 8.11.2007 and during that period she also came across a number of members of public but the prosecutrix did not make a complaint against respondent-accused Narender. There also is evidence available (in the statement of DW-1 Nathu Lal Sharma, who is the Priest in the Arya Samaj Mandir, Vidhya Nagar, Jaipur) to the effect that the prosecutrix and respondent-accused Narender got married. Their marriage was also got registered in the office of the District Collector. The prosecutrix was Criminial Revision No. 2437 of 2009(O&M) -2- *** recorded to be a major on the basis of certification Ex. DX and Ex. DY. A number of love letters would prove on record. Photographs Ex. D2 to Ex. D35 were suggestive of the fact that the prosecutrix and respondent Narender were having an intimate relationship. The prosecutrix admitted appearing in those photographs but denied that the love letters were to be in her hand. When she was called upon to give her specimen writing and signature, she declined to do so. The other two respondents accused are a driver and a friend respectively of respondent-accused Narender. They were proved to have only help them realise their love. There is not even allegation that they committed rape upon the prosecutrix. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am clear in my mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. I have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and it so ordered accordingly. October 29, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No