IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No.: 692 of 1996. Decided on: 06.05.2010. _____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. … Appellant. Versus Satish Kumar. …Accused/Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This appeal, by the State, is directed against the judgment dated 25.5.1996, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Sessions Trial No.1-S/7 of 1996 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that on 16.4.1995 the accused abducted the prosecutrix out of the lawful guardianship of her father Jeet Ram and took her from Sanjauli to Rohru. A complaint in this behalf was lodged by PW-3, Jeet Ram, father of the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - prosecutrix and on the basis of this report, F.I.R. was registered at Police Station, Dhalli. During the course of investigation of the F.I.R., prosecutrix was recovered from Rohru where she had been kept by the accused in a room. After investigation, the accused was challaned with having committed the offences punishable under Section 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code. After trial, the accused was acquitted. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 3. The statement of the prosecutrix itself shatters the prosecution case totally. According to her, she was residing with her father at Sanjauli. The accused is their neighbourer and on the night of 15th April, she was rebuked by her father and therefore, next morning she alongwith accused went to Rohru. She met the accused at Sanjauli and they walked upto Dhalli and then they boarded the bus for Rohru. They stayed for a night in a shop at Rohru. Next morning, i.e. on 17.4.1995, her father alongwith the police reached Rohru. At that time, she was in a room and the accused was at the bus stand. The accused had brought the police to the room where she was kept. According to the prosecutrix, her date of birth is 1.2.1978, which shows that she was more than 17 years and 2 months of age at the time of occurrence and she knew the accused for the last about 5 years and even had been visiting the accused and also writing letters showing her affection and love to the accused. She has clearly stated that on the date of occurrence, she herself had volunteered to go to Rohru because she was rebuked by her father the previous day. - 3 - 4. In view of the above statement of the prosecutrix, it is more than obvious that the accused played no role in taking away the prosecutrix from the guardianship of her father. Though the prosecutrix was little less than 18 years of age but she was a grown-up girl. She was a student of 10+2 at that time and was not a small child. She and the accused were having affection for each other since they were exchanging love letters and she had voluntarily gone to Rohru. 5. Therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. No ground for interference with the judgment of acquittal is made out. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. May 06, 2010. (sck).