IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 652 of 2000 Decided on: 30.9.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Om Parkash & Ors. ..…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For the respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. 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 31.7.2000, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1998, acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences, under Sections 363, 366, 342 read with Section 34 IPC, in reference to FIR No. 6/1994, dated 9.3.1994. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The prosecution case is that victim/prosecutrix (name not given) was kidnapped on 5.3.1994, from her village, when she had gone for answering the call of nature at 10.00 P.M., she was over powered by the respondents-accused and was taken out to the house of respondent-accused Om Parkash and she was pressurised to marry Madan Lal, however, on her declining, on 6.3.1994, she was taken to a different place and thereafter, a search was made and complaint was also made. After investigation, respondent-accused was charged for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, whereas, the respondents-accused through their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 4. On analysis of prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that victim/prosecutrix was at the age of applying her own discretion and in view of her own testimony, she was kidnapped by dragging her on the back, however, no injury or any mark was noticed on her body that she was dragged and the incident was reported after four days for which no explanation was given and the testimony of victim/prosecutrix alone was not supported by any other prosecution witnesses. Even one of the brothers of victim/prosecutrix, namel,y PW-2 Brij Lal has not supported the prosecution case to whom victim/prosecutrix met next day of the date of incident and she had not narrated anything about 3 the incident. In these circumstances, the testimony of victim/prosecutrix itself is not inspiring confidence. 5. On the basis of prosecution witnesses and materials on record, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and failed to bring home the guilt to the respondent-accused. Criminal appeal being devoid of any merit, is, therefore, dismissed. 6. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondents-accused are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. September 30, 2010 (V.K. Sharma), Judge. (vs)