1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 235 OF 1997 Date of Decision: 02.06-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P.. ……..Appellant. Versus Ramesh Chand ……..Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For respondent : Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral) Heard and gone through the record. State is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court whereby respondent Ramesh Chand, who was tried for offences punishable under Sections 376, 317 and 302, I.P.C, has been acquitted. Prosecution case as per evidence on record may be stated thus. A lady by the name of Fulma had a daughter (prosecutrix in this case). Said Fulma married the present respondent when the prosecutrix was five or six years old. This happened seven-eight years prior to the occurrence. The period of occurrence is 1994-95. Respondent is alleged to have developed illicit relations with the prosecutrix as a result of which she became pregnant and on 21-10-1995, she delivered a fully developed female child. The child was thrown into the forest. It was spotted by the residents of the area. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Devi Singh (PW3) Up Pradhan of the concerned Panchayat reported the matter to the Police. Child was taken to the Hospital where it expired two/three days later. Case was registered against the respondent. Prosecutrix was got medically examined by the Police. She was found to have delivered a child recently. During the trial, the prosecution could not examine the prosecutrix or her mother Fulma nor could it lead any other evidence indicating that the respondent had fathered the child of the prosecutrix or that he was in any way responsible for the death of the child. Prosecution examined PW3 Devi Singh Up-Pradhan who stated that once an accusation had been made by the Nana of the prosecutrix that the respondent was responsible for the pregnancy of the prosecutrix, but the prosecutrix herself had refuted the allegation. Prosecution could not lead any other evidence in support of the charge. So we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (Surinder Singh) Judge. June 2, 2008. (bm)