1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 608 of 2002 Decided on September 26, 2011 _____________________________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Chaman Singh and others ...Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud Judge. ¹Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr.R.K.Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General For Respondents No.1, 3 and 5: Mr.Chaman Negi, Advocate vice Mr.Anup Chitkara, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 and 4: Mr.Puneet Rajta, Advocate vice Mr.K.D.Shreedhar, Advocate. Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. The state prefers this appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, passed on 13.6.2002 in Sessions Trial No.40 of 1999, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A and 368 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter IPC). 2 2. The case of the prosecution, against the respondents, is that Moti Ram, father of Sunki Devi, who is alleged to have been kidnapped, filed a complaint Ex.PA with the Sub Divisional Officer, Pangi, stating that on 3.7.1996, his daughter had gone to the jungle to graze their cattle. She was accompanied by three other girls from the village. At around 4.00 PM, these girls came crying and shouting to his house and told him that 10-12 persons had dragged away Sunki Devi towards village Ghisal. He immediately proceeded there this alongwith 4-5 persons and saw his daughter in a bad and dishevelled state in the house of one Gehmi Ram son of Sh.Deva Ram, she was mentally traumatized and her clothes were torn. He requested that appropriate action be taken against the accused. 3. We have gone through the judgment of the learned trial court and found the facts to be bizzare. The incident has not been corroborated by any witness. If we look to the facts of the complaint, what we find from the record, is that PW.2 Smt.Sunki says that she had gone to graze cattle to the jungle alone; she had not raised any hue and cry when she had been kidnapped. She further says that it takes 2-3 hours to reach village Ghisal from the jungle where she was grazing her cattle. Her clothes were 3 torn when she was forcibly taken away by the accused. Smt.Premi wife of Gehmi Ram was present there at that time. Chaman Singh, accused, had offered her water but she refused to drink it. Premi was forcing her to marry Chaman (accused) saying that he was a handsome and suitable match, but she refused her proposal. She stayed in the house of Gehmi Ram during that night and next day her father came there alongwith Pradhan of Gram Panchayat accompanied by her uncles. Thereafter, they took her away from the house of the accused. But in cross-examination, she states that in the forest, villagers of village Ghisal and Hillor graze their cattle. Her clothes were torn when she was forcibly taken away, she had raised a hue and cry at that time, but no body helped her. There are 4-5 houses adjoining the house of Gehmi Ram but she did not protest or raise hue and cry when she was confined in the house of Gehmi Ram. Her uncles, Prem Lal, Chain Lal and Kewal Ram had come to meet her in the house of Gehmi Ram, but she did not accompany them that day. She says that she cannot give any reason as to why she did not accompany her uncles on that night. She states that she came to her father's house from the house of Gehmi Ram the next day. 4. PW.1 Sh.Moti Ram father of the prosecutrix 4 states in his evidence replete in details, that when his nephew Jeet Singh, who had gone to graze cattle with his daughter, had returned in the evening and informed him that about 10-12 persons came to the forest had forcibly dragged away his daughter. Thereafter, he called his brothers Prem Lal, Chain Lal and Kewal Ram and also talked to his wife Smt.Sewi. He deputed his brothers to search for his daughter as he was ill and could not move out. They found his daughter at village Ghisal in the house of Gehmi Ram. Thereafter, Chain Lal informed him about this fact and that the condition of his daughter was pitiable. Thereafter, he brought his daughter back. 5. PW.5 Sh.Jeet Singh has another story to tell. He says that about 5 years ago from the date when he was deposing in Court, he had gone to graze his cattle in the forest alongwith Sunki Devi, Phula Kumari (PW.6) Lachhmi Devi (PW.7) and Duli Kumari (PW.8), when Chaman Singh (accused) took away Sunki Devi. He says that he informed his uncle about this fact after about 2-3 months of the incident. He says in his examination-in-chief, that he did not resist the accused when he lifted the prosecutrix nor other two ladies present with him tried to obstruct Chaman Singh from dragging away Sunki Devi. 6. PW.7 Smt.Lachhmi Devi and Phula Kumari 5 (PW.6) also state that only Chaman Singh took away Sunki Devi. Similar fact is stated by Dhuli Devi (PW.8). PW.7 Lachhmi Devi also says that she was present at that time, where she was grazing her cattle in the jungle, when the accused suddenly appeared on the scene and took away Sunki Devi. This is the entirety of the evidence. 7. We find the statements to be insufficient for attracting the provisions of Sections 363, 366-A and 368 IPC. The prosecutrix does not support any one of them, since she says that she was alone in the forest and there is no explanation as to why she did not accompany her uncles to her parental house. Jeet Singh of course says that he informed Moti Ram after a period of 2-3 months from the incident. In the report (Ex.PA), Moti Ram makes a mention about the ladies accompanying his daughter. 8. The prosecution relies upon Ex.PB, extract of the parivar register to establish the age of the prosecutrix, which shows her date of birth to be 6.1.1980 that she was a minor at the time of the incident. But we cannot accept this evidence for the reason that PW.3 Sh.Diwan Chand, states that the register was compiled in the year 1996 and there is no Parivaar register earlier to 1995. He had not brought the register of Births and Deaths from which he has compiled the entries in this register. In these 6 circumstances, Ex.PB is nothing, but a worthless piece of paper. 9. After having given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any offence having been made against the accused, as the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 13. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge September 26, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (Purohit) Judge