IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. A No.212 of 1998 Decided on: 23.4.2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Ramesh Chand and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 7.11.1997 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, whereby respondents, who were tried for offence of gang rape, under Section 376 (g) IPC, have been acquitted. 2. Prosecutrix, examined as PW-4, was aged about 16 years at the time of alleged occurrence, which took place on 17.8.1996, around 4 A.M. There was a marriage in the house of one Sheru Ram in the village. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - In connection with that marriage function, a Nati (folk dance in which men and women participate) was organized in the courtyard of one Mast Ram. Prosecutrix also participated in that dance. After dancing, she proceeded towards her house around 4 A.M. When she was walking along village beaten path, respondent Ramesh Chand allegedly lifted her physically and took her to nearby cowshed of one Lachhi Ram. After dropping her in the cow shed, Ramesh Chand respondent came out. Then other two respondents, who were accompanying Ramesh Chand, overpowered the prosecutrix and they committed rape on her, one after the other. On hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, her Mami PW-5 Jhagri Devi reached the spot. At that time, respondent Kamal Kumar was mounted on the prosecutrix. He pushed Jhagri Devi and went away. Jhagri Devi then went to inform the mother of the prosecutrix, namely PW-6 Holi Devi. When Holi Devi reached the house of Lachhi Ram, she found the lower part of prosecutrix’ body naked. She helped the prosecutrix to wear her Salwar which was lying nearby and took her home. 3. On the third day, prosecutrix was taken by her mother to the Police Station. FIR Ex. PW-4/A was lodged. Police got prosecutrix medically examined. - 3 - PW-1 Dr. Sudesh Kaul conducted medical examination. She noticed no injury on the person of prosecutrix. She opined that vagina of prosecutrix admitted two fingers easily and she was habitual of sexual intercourse. 4. Respondents were arrested. Two of them, Kamal Kumar and Suresh Kumar were got medically examined. Nothing, suggesting that they were incapable of performing sexual intercourse, was noticed. Under-wears of the above named two respondents and the Salwar and Kameez of the prosecutrix were sent to Chemical Examiner. Stains of human semen were found on the under-wears of the respondents, but no stains of semen or blood were noticed on the shirt and Salwar of the prosecutrix. 5. Respondents were charged with the offence of gang rape. They pleaded not guilty. Therefore, they were put on trial. 6. Prosecution examined prosecutrix as PW-4, Jhagri Devi as PW-5 and the mother of the prosecutrix Holi Devi as PW-6. 7. Testimony of the prosecutrix is contradictory to the version given in the FIR, with which she was duly confronted. In the FIR, she stated that she had been physically lifted by respondent - 4 - Ramesh Chand from a beaten path, when she was going to her house after participating in the dance. However, in the Court she stated that she was still in the courtyard of Mast Ram, the site of dance, when she was physically lifted by respondents Ramesh Chand and Suresh Kumar and carried to Lachhi Ram’s cowshed. She also stated that 10-12 persons were there in the courtyard when she was lifted by Ramesh Chand and Suresh Kumar. She did not say that she raised any hue and cry to attract the attention of those 10-12 persons. 8. In the earliest version, she stated that Ramesh Chand, after dropping her in the cowshed, went out, while the other two respondents committed rape on her, but in the Court she stated that Ramesh Chand was also inside the cowshed, when rape was committed by one of the two other respondents. 9. Again, in the FIR she got recorded that all three respondents were together when she was lifted from the village path by respondent Ramesh Chand, but in the Court she stated that Ramesh took her to the cowshed and the two respondents came to the cowshed later on. Further, in the FIR, she got recorded that only Ramesh Chand was known to her from before and the other respondents were not known to her prior - 5 - to the occurrence. However, in the Court she testified that respondent Kamal Kumar had been known to her since childhood and he was a distant cousin of her father and hence her Chachu. 10. Looking to the above stated serious contradictions in the earliest version and the testimony of the prosecutrix, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering in the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J April 23, 2010(PC) (V.K. Sharma), J.