1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. M.P. (M) No. 513 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.6.2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H P. Appellant. -vs- Pyare Lal. Respondent. ___________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents : _________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral). Heard and gone through the record. Respondent was tried for the offence of rape, allegedly committed by him, on the prosecutrix at his house between 3.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. on 14-6-2003. Prosecutrix lodged F.I.R. on that very day of the alleged occurrence in the evening. She reported that she had gone to a village, known as Malayaghat, to pay obeisance at a temple because she had been suffering from tension and depression and on the way back, respondent boarded the same Bus by which she was traveling and made her to deboard the bus at a place called Kandror, from where he took her by another bus to his village known as Kuddi. On reaching home, the respondent allegedly wrongfully confined the prosecutrix in a room of his house, kept her inside that room from 3.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. and during this period of confinement, committed rape on her. Respondent took the plea that the prosecutrix was in love with him and had been having illicit affairs with him but her husband came Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 to know about the illicit relationship and he not only gave beatings to her, but also forced her to lodge report with the Police. He tried to show that after the registration of the case, the prosecutrix made a statement to the Pradhan of the village, named, Sukhan Devi (DW1) that report lodged by her was false and she had made the same, on being pressurized by her husband. He also tried to show that when he was lodged in the jail, during trial, the prosecutrix visited him and there was entry in the jail record regarding her visit. He also produced photographs, Exhibits DA to DE, in which both the prosecutrix and the respondent are photographed together, in postures which give the impression that atleast they were known to each other and had good friendly relations. We sent for the record. We have gone through the statement of the prosecutrix. Also we have seen the photographs and perused the statement of DW1 Smt. Sukhan Devi, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Kuddi. Prosecutrix was shown the photographs Exhibit DA to DE, when she was in the witness box. She admitted that the photographs were clicked when she was in the company of the respondent. She offered no explanation how she was shown in some of the photographs embracing the respondent. She admitted that she became acquainted with the respondent three months prior to the occurrence. She was also confronted with the writing Mark-DX which she allegedly executed in the presence of DW1 Sukhan Devi, Prandhan of Gram Panchayat Kuddi. She denied having thumb impressed the said document. However, DW1 Sukhan Devi appeared and stated that after the registration of the case against the respondent and his arrest, prosecutrix visited the respondent’s place and squatted on the slab of his house and when she accompanied by other respectable persons of the village went there, she stated that the report lodged by her against the respondent was false and that her husband had made her to lodge that report. We see no reason to dis-believe the testimony of Pradhan of the 3 Panchayat, especially when there are photographs in which the prosecutrix is shown in the company of the respondent in postures, indicating that they had some intimacy/affair. Photographs appear to have been taken at different places, which fact belies the statement of the prosecutrix that all the photographs were taken in one go at the house of the respondent. Prosecutrix also admitted that there was an entry in the jail record about her visit to the jail, when the respondent was lodged there, though she stated that she never visited the jail and the entry was false. For the foregoing reasons, we see no ground for grant of leave to appeal. Therefore the petition is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. (Surinder Singh), J. June 27, 2008. (bm)