Crl.Rev. No.1039 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO:Crl.Rev. No.1039 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: May 20, 2009 PREM ...PETITIONER VERSUS RAJU AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. Present: Mr.Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate on behalf of Mr.Vikas Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Surinder Dagar, Advocate for respondent No.1. ***** ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner Prem, who was the complainant in this case, has filed this revision against judgment dated 12.8.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide which the accused-Raju was acquitted of the charges under Section 376 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.3.1997 at about 6.00 a.m. the complainant-Prem alongwith her friends Shakuntala, Chanda, Bimla went out of her house to answer the call of nature. After they had eased themselves in a field of mustard-crop and were going back to their house, accused-Raju was reported to have caught hold of the complainant and committed rape on her against her will. The complainant did not disclose the incident to her parents or to any other person due to shyness. However, as there was a rumour in the village that the complainant is pregnant, she tried to sprinkle kerosene oil and Crl.Rev. No.1039 of 2002 -2- tried to commit suicide, but, the fire was extinguished by her cousin brother Sukhbir. She was taken to the Civil Hospital, Palwal where she was treated for superficial burns. The petitioner was medico legally examined on 10.3.1997 by PW-3 Dr.Usha Rani, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Anandpur, Faridabad, who stated that there was no visible injury on the body of Prem and it was also opined by the Dr.Usha Rani, Medical Officer that Prem is habitual to sexual intercourse and that the complainant did not tell the doctor that the accused committed rape on her. The prosecution examined prosecutrix Premwati as PW-8, who apart from reiterating the fact that the accused had committed rape on her, however, stated in cross-examination that she did not raise any alarm while the accused was having sexual intercourse with her. It has been averred on behalf of the petitioner that as prosecutrix was about 16 years of age and hence it is immaterial whether there was consent on the part of the prosecutrix or not and that the accused be convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC. It has also been averred by the counsel for the petitioner that the prosecutrix is not a consenting party and hence the judgment of trial court will be liable to be set aside. The trial court has held that the prosecutrix had crossed the age of 16 years in the light of testimony of her father PW-2, Bed Ram. It was further held that as no resistance was offered by the prosecutrix and as she did not raise any alarm while accused was committing sexual intercourse with her, therefore, it has to be presumed that prosecutrix was a consenting party. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Court carefully and found that on the date of incident, i.e. on 8.3.1997, the Crl.Rev. No.1039 of 2002 -3- prosecutrix had gone to ease herself alongwith her three friends. When they all were returning back home after easing herself, the accused caught hold of her and committed rape on her. The prosecutrix did not raise any alarm. Even if her friends had gone ahead and the prosecutrix had got separated from them still if she had raised an alarm then her friends or some other persons might have come to her rescue. There is no allegation either in the FIR or in her statement before the Court that accused had threatened her with dire consequences or had asked her to keep quiet by showing some weapon. Apart from the above, a perusal of the statement of PW-3 Dr.Usha Rani, Medical Officer shows that the prosecutrix never stated before the doctor that accused had committed rape on her. The examination of the prosecutrix by the doctor also shows that there was no injury marks on her person and that she was habitual to intercourse. Her age has been proved to be over 16 years. The plea of the petitioner that she was below 16 years of age is belied by the deposition of Bed Ram-father of the prosecutrix who has stated that she was more than 16 years of age. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the accused had committed rape on her. The learned trial Court has taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused which cannot be held to be perverse. In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in judgment passed by the learned trial Court and accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. May 20, 2009 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Vt JUDGE