IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 237 of 1997 Date of decision: 17.08.2010 ____________________________________________________________ The State of H.P. .....Appellant. Versus Sunder Singh & another .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra,J. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. K.D. Batish, Advocate. R.B. Misra, J (Oral). The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.1997, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, in Police Challan No. 17-II/95/93, acquitting the alleged accused under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ...2... 26.10.1991, Bimla Devi, a major woman, was kidnapped by accused Sunder Singh and Govind Ram and she came back to her house at her own on 28.10.1991. It also appears that Bimla Devi was engaged to be married with Govind Ram, but the marriage could not be solemnised. However, accused were charged for the above offences and the case was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as twelve prosecution witnesses, whereas, accused- respondents through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 4. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and the material on record, it appears that PW-9, Dr. Ashwani Kumar, had only noticed minor injuries on the body of the victim. However, no marks of any sexual assault were noticed by him on her body. None of the prosecution witnesses have specifically indicated that she was taken forcibly against her free will. However, the victim was kept in a room for two days. 5. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated that she was taken forcibly from the lawful guardianship of her parents and was kept for two nights in the custody of the accused persons. Accused persons have not misbehaved with the victim during the aforesaid period. Therefore, on analysis of the facts, prosecution witnesses and the material on record, learned trial court has found that the prosecution case is doubtful. In our considered view also, prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond resonable ...3... doubt and there is no scope of interference in the judgment of the trial court and appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. (R.B. Misra) Judge (V.K. Sharma) Judge 17th August, 2010 (virender)