IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.: 352 of 2003 Date of Decision: 1.12.2011. State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Balbir Singh and another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant-State: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. For the Respondents: Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 1.5.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Sessions trial No. 16-ST/7 of 2002 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix who was below 18 years of age at the relevant time had gone to village Bairy to attend the marriage of her cousin alongwith her two minor sisters. The prosecutrix as well as the other girls applied Mehandi on their hands and at about 2.00 a.m on 17.2.2002 the 2 prosecutrix came out with her cousin Chandni to wash out her hands at the tap. There she was caught by accused Bhupinder Singh. The prosecutrix allegedly raised alarm but none came to rescue her. Thereafter, the two accused caught hold of the prosecutrix and dragged her to the house of accused Balbir where she was illegally confined in a room and the door was bolted from inside. Accused Balbir told the prosecutrix that he was in love with her and wanted to marry with her. The prosecutrix declined this proposal. Within five minutes a phone call came which was attended to by accused Balbir. The prosecutrix wanted to raise an alarm and talk on the phone but at this stage her mouth was gagged. At about 2.30 a.m her maternal uncle Sita Ram alongwith other villagers came there and knock at the main gate. On hearing the noise the two accused ran away from the spot and thereafter the prosecutrix was rescued by her uncle. Thereafter, the prosecutrix lodged a report with the Police Station Renuka and on the basis of this, F.I.R. (Ext.PW-1/A) was registered. 3. According to the prosecutrix when the incident occurred her cousin Chandni was accompanying her. Chandni was a young girl aged 12 years but the Court was satisfied that she understood the sanctity of 3 making a statement and certified that she is a competent witness. According to her after mid-night people were dancing and the prosecutrix and she went out to wash the Mehandi. Thereafter, the witness was called by her Bua and she does not know what happened thereafter. This version is totally contrary to that of the prosecutrix. Furthermore, according to the prosecutrix she had raised an alarm when the accused had caught hold of her. If that was true and Chandni was present alongwith the prosecutrix at that time, even if Chandni being a young girl may not have been able to intervene, she would have immediately come home and told the other family members about the incident. In fact, Chandni in her cross-examination has specifically stated that the prosecutrix had not raised any alarm when she had gone to wash out the Mehandi and she also states that neither the accused nor any other person were present at the place where the hands were washed. It is thus apparent that the prosecutrix was not abducted by the accused in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. 4. Another important aspect of the case is that according to the prosecution it was Sita Ram, uncle of the prosecutrix, who had recovered her from the room where the accused had taken her. He was the most 4 important witness in the case other than the prosecutrix. It was he alone who could have told as to how he had derived the knowledge that the prosecutrix was in the house of the accused. He alone could have told in what manner the prosecutrix had been kept and whether the door was bolted or not. Due to non- examination of Sita Ram an adverse inference can be drawn which is virtually fatal to the prosecution case. 5. The learned trail Court has observed that from the evidence on record it appears that the prosecutrix may have gone of her own volition with the accused and when her family members found out about this then a false case has been made out. This is a plausible explanation which has been accepted by the learned trial Court. We find no reason to interfere with the judgement of the learned trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 1st December, 2011 ( V.K.Ahuja ) ™ Judge.