IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 542 of 1999 Date of Decision : July 24, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant v. Gulab 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. A.G. For the respondents: Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 30.7.1999 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1996, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 342, 363, 365, 366 & 457 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. PW-9 Jitender Mehta belongs to village Sunnam falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Pooh in District Kinnaur. On 17.12.1994 at about 8.20 a.m., he lodged a report with the Police Station to the effect that his sister PW-7 Sunita 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Devi had gone with her cousin PW-8 Santosh Kumari to village Shyaso to attend Losar fair held inside the house of her relative during night hours. When they were sleeping in the house of PW- 4, at about 9.00 p.m. accused Gulab Singh accompanied by co- accused Inder Singh, Lobu Ram, Vijay Kumar, Chhering Lal, Aggar Sain, Partap Singh, Sher Singh and Nima Ram, forcibly entered into the room through the window and abducted PW-7. The motive, according to the prosecution was that Gulab Singh wanted to marry PW-7. PW-8 Santosh Kumari came home and informed PW-9 Jitender Mehta and he in turn lodged a report on the basis of which F.I.R. (Ex.PE) was recorded. 3. According to the prosecution, after abducting the prosecutrix the accused persons were also joined by the two lady accused Krishna Devi and Karni Devi. The prosecutrix along with some of the accused in two different vehicles went to Sundernagar to the house of PW-6 Sh. R. S. Negi, who is the paternal uncle of accused Gulab Singh. The prosecutrix was kept in the house of PW-6. According to the prosecutrix there also an attempt was made to compel her to marry Gulab Singh but she refused and thereafter her brother and other family members came to Sundernagar and took her back to her home. 4. It has come in evidence that both PW-7 and accused Gulab Singh were studying at Chandigarh. It has also come in evidence that they were having intimacy with each other and their relationship was friendly. No doubt PW-7 has denied that 3 she was in love with the accused but she has admitted that she knew him quite well. According to her, it was the accused Inder Singh who first caught hold of her by arm when all the accused entered the room and the other male persons lifted her bodily and dragged her to the main road. When they reached the main road the two female accused persons also joined them. Though later she changed her statement and stated that the female accused joined the other accused about 2½ kms. further down the main road. 5. The incident is stated to have occurred in the house of Gian Chand. Even as per the prosecutrix prior to her abduction the accused had come and tried to compel her to go with him and at that time they had been reprimanded by Gian Chand. But Gian Chand has not been examined in Court. PW-8 Santosh Kumari admitted that the room in which they were sleeping adjoins the room where Gian Chand and his family was sleeping. He along with his wife and children were in that room at the relevant time. If the version of PW-7 and PW-8 was correct that they had resisted the attempt of the accused and raised a hue and cry, Gian Chand would have definitely intervened. The prosecution has failed to give any plausible explanation for non-examination of Gian Chand. He was one of the most material witnesses. He was given up as being un- necessary. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that his statement was not relevant. He would have been the sole 4 independent witness to the occurrence since Santosh Kumari, PW-8 is a cousin of the prosecutrix. 6. According to PW-8 Santosh Kumari, when PW-7 was being abducted she (Santosh Kumari) was restrained and kept in the room by one Sunder. This fact does not find mention in her statement recorded by the police under Section 151 Cr.PC with which she was duly confronted. 6. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that PW-7 & PW-8 did not raise an alarm then the accused Gulab Singh alongwith other accused entered the room. If that had been the case Gian Chand, who had intervened on the first occasion would have intervened again. 7. It has also come in evidence that village Shyaso falls in the jurisdiction of Pooh. The prosecutrix was taken to Sunderngar which is at a great distance. The prosecutrix admits that the vehicle broke down and there was a tyre puncture. They also had tea, meals etc. at different places. On all these occasions the prosecutrix had an occasion to complain to the members of the public but she did not do so. The prosecutrix did not state that she was threatened by the accused and, therefore, could not raise an alarm. 8. Even the conduct of the accused in the house of R.S. Negi (PW-6) shows that probably the prosecutrix had willingly come with the accused. The prosecutrix was not physically or mentally abused. She was asked by PW-6 if she wanted to marry 5 with Gulab Singh. On her refusal he kept her in his own house and told that she would be treated like a daughter. The prosecutrix in cross-examination has admitted that Sh. R.S. Negi treated her like a daughter and kept her safely in his house. It is apparent that in the meantime the relatives of the prosecutrix had got in touch with Sh. R. S. Negi and they went to Sundernagar and the prosecutrix was brought back. In these circumstances, the prosecution version that the accused forcibly entered into the house of Gian Chand or that the prosecutrix was abducted does not appear to be true. 9. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. July 24, 2010. (Sanjay Karol) (rana) Judge.