1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 295/1997 Decided on: August 20, 2010 State of HP …Appellant. VERSUS Pyare Lal & another ….Respondents. 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. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG. For the respondents: Mr.M.L. Brakta, Advocate. 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 Code of Criminal procedure in reference to the judgment dated 21.3.1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, HP in Sessions Trial No. 12-S/7 of 1995, thereby acquitting the respondents / accused for the offence under Section 376/34 of IPC. 2. In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. PW-1 victim- prosecutrix had been present in her house in village Shalan on 16.5.1993. PW-3 Sanu Ram, was husband of PW-1. PW-3 had left to Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 work at the house of one Sh. Balak Ram in village Shalan in the morning of 16.5.1993. Mother in law of PW-1 had gone to the house of her parents, on that day. The accused persons had their house close to the house of PW-1. Finding PW-1 alone in her house, at about 1 PM on16.5.1993, both the accused persons had trespassed into the house of PW-1. The accused persons had snatched baby of about one year in age from PW-1. The accused persons had made to fall PW-1 on the ground with face of PW-1 towards the sky. The accused person No.1 had thereafter laid on PW-1 and had committed rape with her. The accused person No.2 had taken care of the arms of PW-1 when the accused person No.1 had been committing rape on the person of PW-1. Afterwards the accused person No.1 had taken care of the arms of PW- 1 and the accused person No.2 had laid on her. The accused person No.2 had also committed rape on the person of PW-1. The baby of PW- 1 had been crying from the moment when she had been snatched from PW-1. PW-1 had also been crying for help. The wailings of PW-1 and her child had attracted the attention, among others, of PW-2 Roshan and one Purshotam. PW-2 Roshan Lal and Purshotam had their houses close to the house of PW-1. PW-2 Roshan Lal and Purshotam had rushed towards the house of PW-1. Finding someone approaching the house of PW-1, both the accused persons had left PW-1 and had managed to escape. PW-2 Roshan Lal and Purshotam had noticed the accused persons escaping from the house of PW-1. PW-1 had stepped out of her house and had narrated the incident to PW-2 Roshan lal and Purshotam. PW-3 Sanu Ram had returned to his house in the evening of 16.5.1993. PW-1 had informed her husband of the event. At the time of the e3vent, PW-1 had been carrying pregnancy of about 5 months. 3 As a result of the act of the accused persons, PW-1 had developed pain in stomach, legs and private parts. PW-1 was stated to be unable to move out. Police Station, Rohru was stated to be at a distance of about 15 KMs from the house of PW-1. PW-1 and her husband had reported the matter to the police on 24.5.1993 at 3.30 PM vide FIR Ex PA. PW-8 Madan Lal, ASI, Police Station, Rohru had looked into the FIR got registered by PW-1 against the accused persons. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses, whereas the respondents/accused to their statements under section 313 of Cr.P.C denied the prosecution case. 4. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice that the incident took place on 16.5.1993 and the victim-prosecutrix, in any case, was major. The FIR was lodged belatedly on 24.5.1993 at 3.30 PM. All the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case to the extent that the sexual assault on the victim was not against her will. In medical examination also, no abrasions/injuries were found. No sign was visible in medical examination to infer that the sexual assault was made against her consent. 5. After going through the material on record the contents of the impugned judgment passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, we find that the prosecution has failed to bring home guilty to the accused. The inordinate delay could not be explained. The victim-prosecutrix, being major, cannot be said to have sexually assaulted without her consent. 6. In our considered view, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We find no scope for interference in the 4 impugned judgment passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 7. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondents/accused, are hereby discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. 20th August, 2010 ( V.K.Sharma ), J. (sl) 5