N THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.360 of 1999 Decided on: 12th July, 2010 State of H.P …..Appellant. VERSUS Hari Singh & ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr.H.K.Paul, Advocate. Deepak Gupta,Judge (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 14.5.1999 delivered by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No.17 of 1995 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 456, 376, 312 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix was 21 years old at the relevant time. She was living with her maternal grandmother, Smt.Fulan Devi 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… (PW/3) since her mother had expired when she was only one day old and had been brought up by her maternal grandmother. Accused No.2 and 3 namely Parvati Devi and Balak Ram were the next door neighbours of her grandmother. According to the prosecutrix, sometime in the month of August, 1993, her maternal grandmother fell ill and was admitted in the Zonal Hospital, Mandi. The prosecutrix continued to reside in the house of her maternal grandmother and accused Nos.2 and 3 had promised to lookafter her. On the night intervening 8th August, 1993 and 9th August, 1993, Hari Singh, accused No.1 trespassed into the house of the prosecutrix by breaking the window and then subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. He assured the prosecutrix that he would marry her. He also told her not to tell about the incident to her maternal grandmother. After some months, the prosecutrix realized that she was pregnant and at that time, accused No.3 Balak Ram who was working as a Class-IV employee in PHC Sidhyani for many years administered certain drugs/injections to the prosecutrix with a view to introduce abortion but could not succeed. Hari Singh, accused No.1 refused to marry the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix finally delivered a child …3… on 10.5.1994. When the accused Hari Singh refused to marry her, a complaint Ext.PW3/A was filed with the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi and on the basis of this complaint, an FIR Ext.No.PW10/B was registered on 19.5.1994. Thereafter, the matter was investigated. After completion of investigation, the accused were summoned. They were charged with having committed the offences detailed here-in-above. They pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. After trial, the accused were acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State. 3. The prosecutrix (PW/2) appeared as her own witness. From her version itself, it is apparent that this is a case of consensual sex and not of rape. She is a grown up woman aged about 21 years. She did not tell anybody that she was pregnant nor did she complain to any person that she had been subjected to rape till the child was born. She in cross-examination admitted that Hari Singh and she had had sexual intercourse from August, 1993 till February, 1994 on more than a hundred occasions. This, obviously could not be a case of rape. There is no evidence worth the name against the other accused. …4… 4. In respect of the termination of pregnancy, other than the bald statement of the prosecutrix, there is no other material on record to show that the accused made any attempt to terminate her pregnancy. There are various inconsistencies in the statement of the prosecutrix due to which it would be very unsafe to rely upon the same. She admitted that she was taken to a doctor who found that she was pregnant. If the accused wanted to abort her pregnancy, this could have been done in the hospital. She also admitted that the injection she was administered in PHC, Sidhyani was a Tetanus injection to cure the injuries which she had suffered. 5. In view of the above discussion, the learned Trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the judgment of the learned Trial Court. The appeal being without merit is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. July 12, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (m) Judge …5…