IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No: 599 of 1996 Date of decision: 12.7.2010 State of H.P. .....Appellant. Versus Udey Singh and Ors. .....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 with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Ms. Aruna Sharma, Advocate vice Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate for respondents No. 2, 5 and 6. Mr. Varun Chandel, Advocate vice Mr. Rajiv Jewan for respondent No.3 Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.5. 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 dated 25.3.1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Whether the reports of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Sessions Trial No. 7-N/7 of 1994, acquitting the alleged accused under Sections 363, 366 and 368/109 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In order to adjudicate the criminal appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. The prosecution case is that Shupi Devi, daughter of Ratti Ram, was married to accused Udey Singh in the year 1992-1993 and after the marriage she remained with Udey Singh for about 8-9 days. Thereafter she started living with her father at village Manal. On 28.4.1993, accused Udey Singh, Ramesh Chand and Ram Bhaj came to the house of Ratti Ram and spent the night there on the pretext that the father of Udey Singh had been admitted in the hospital at Shillai. Udey Singh wanted to take Shupi Devi, being his wife to Shimla. Shupi Devi accompanied him along with Ramesh Chand and Ram Bhaj and went to Shillai. Ratti Ram also accompanied them. After going little ahead, Ratti Ram and Ram Bhaj lagged behind and Ramesh Chand, Udey Singh and Shupi Devi went to Shillai. At Shillai, Ratti Ram came to know that accused Udey Singh and Shupi Devi had gone to the hospital. Accused Ramesh Chand met Ratti Ram at the bus stand and told him that Udey Singh had taken a sum of Rs.200/- and had gone to Kando Bohal with Shupi Devi. Ratti Ram felt suspicious and started searching for his daughter at Shimla, Paonta Sahib, Vikas Nagar etc. and when he could 3 search Shupi Devi, he reported the matter to the police at Police Post, Shillai on 5.5.1993. On 25.5.1993, Shupi Devi was brought to her father by one Bir Singh and on enquiry Shupi Devi revealed that the accused Udey Singh had taken her to Kafota thereafter to Paonta Sahib and then to Yamuna Nagar to the house of Ajeet Kaur alias Shallo and she was confined in the house and then forcibly married to accused Balbir Singh under the guidance of accused Mohinder Singh and Ajeet Kaur. After completion of investigation, accused persons were charged for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as eleven witnesses, whereas, the accused through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have denied the prosecution case. 4. On scrutiny of prosecution witnesses and material on record, it appears that in view of the testimony of PW-1, Ratti Ram, father of Shupi Devi, the marriage of Shupi Devi was solemnized with accused Udey Singh. However, no proper proof could be adduced which could indicate that they were really married. 5. PW-2, Shupi Devi, also stated that she was married to accused Udey Singh. However, she stated that she remained 4 only for 10-12 days with Udey Singh and further stated that she kept at Shallo’s place at Yamuna Nagar for 23-25 days. According to her, she was taken to Court at Yamuna Nagar by Mohinder Singh, Balbir Singh and Shallo forcibly and she was asked to put her thumb impression on a paper and accordingly she was forcibly married to accused Balbir Singh. Accused Balbir Singh took her to his house at village Talakaur, where she stayed with Balbir Singh for 10-12 days. 6. PW-3, Jalam Singh, PW-5, ASI Parkash Chand, PW- 6, Head Constable Bhim Singh and PW-7 Surinder Singh are of not much help to the prosecution. However, PW-8 Gurnam Singh, Advocate, Public Notary, has stated that an affidavit was placed before him for attestation showing that Shupi Devi, being a major and unmarried, and the contents of the same were read over to Shupi Devi and Balbir Singh and accordingly they had put their signatures. Shupi Devi had declared herself to be unmarried at the time of execution of agreement as she was personally asked by PW-8 regarding her earlier marriage. 7. PW-9 Piare Mohan, PW-10 Ashok Kumar and PW-11 ASI Dharam Singh are of not much help to the prosecution. 8. On the basis of abstract of Birth Register of Panchayat (Ext. P-C) it is clear that date of birth of Shupi Devi is 12.4.1970. She was certainly a major and aged about 23 5 years at the time of incident. On scrutiny of prosecution witnesses, the marriage of Shupi Devi with Udey Singh was stated to have been solemnized in view of the statement of Ratti Ram, Shupi Devi herself. However, they could not conclusively prove that Shupi Devi was really married with Udey Singh. However, Udey Singh was the alleged accused who came himself to take away Shupi Devi from the house of his father- in-law on 28.4.1993. For the sake of arguments, if it is taken that Udey Singh was the husband of Shupi Devi, then he had every right to ask his wife to accompany him on 28.4.1993, for that he could not be charged for any offence(s) punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Being husband, he could have certainly taken away his wife from the place of his father-in- law(Ratti Ram) who too had accompanied accused Udey Singh. If Shupi Devi was a major and accompanied the accused Udey Singh being his wife, and she has every to right to accompany Udey Singh to see the father of her husband Udey Singh, in that case also being a major she was in a position to apply her independent mind/discretion and cannot be said to have been kidnapped/abducted or induced and cannot be treated to be illegally confined at the instance of the alleged accused. How Shupi Devi was inspired to be married with Balbir Singh when Udey Singh was her husband is not known. However, it has also 6 been indicated that in prevailing custom in the area from where Udey Singh and Balbir Singh belong, the marriage can be broken by accepting the REET and the husband could set free his wife after accepting money from the proposed persons to whom his wife was willing to marry further. However, that aspect has not come in the way, as Shupi Devi being a major, she had gone with Udey Singh in the company of other alleged accused and she remained with them for several days without making any hue and cry and she had also gone to Court and had put signatures before a Notary (PW-8) and the agreement of marriage of Shupi Devi with Balbir Singh was read over to them and they had put their signatures. 9. The testimony of PW-2 Ratti Ram does not inspire confidence as his statement only indicates that Shupi Devi was earlier married with Udey Singh and subsequently she was married with Balbir Singh against her wishes. However, nothing has been elaborated that she was not willing to marry. More so, after her marriage with Balbir Singh she remained with Balbir Singh for 10-12 days and had sexual intercourse with him without making any hue and cry, which shows that she accepted Balbir Singh as her husband. 10 Therefore, in the prevailing circumstances, being a major, she spent good time with Balbir Singh as a married 7 woman and in these circumstances, the accused could not be held guilty for aforesaid offences under Sections 363, 366 & 368 of IPC. 11. In our considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment and the Criminal Appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. 12. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondents, are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), J. July 12, 2010 (V.K. Sharma), J. (VT) 8