IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 26 of 2000 Date of Decision: 5.8.2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Prem Chand …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 29.10.1999 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Sessions Trial No. 10-S/7 of 99 whereby she acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On 15th March, 1998 the prosecutrix, who is admittedly a married lady, aged about 35 years at the relevant time, lodged a complaint with the police that on the previous date i.e. on 14th March, 1998 she had gone to fetch water from a water source below her house. The accused suddenly came there and dragged her just 2 behind the school building, tore her clothes and subjected the prosecutrix to forcible sexual intercourse. She raised an alarm and her shouts were heard by her father Anokhi Ram and one Smt. Rameshwari Devi, who saw the accused running from the spot. In the evening, she told about this occurrence to her husband and next day the matter was reported to the police. After recording the F.I.R, the prosecutrix was medically examined and on completion of investigation challan was filed against the accused. 3. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the prosecutrix herself had not supported the prosecution version. In examination-in- chief the prosecutrix stated what she had mentioned in the complaint. However, when she was cross-examined she gave a totally different version. She admitted that she knew the accused from before. She also admitted that on that day she felt giddy and fell down in the bushes and lost her conscious. According to her she felt “that the accused committed bad act with her”. She could not deny the suggestion that the accused only picked her up after she fell down and did not do anything else. She could not admit or deny the suggestion that the accused had not committed rape with her. In view of 3 the statement of the prosecutrix itself nothing is made out against the accused. 4. PW-4 Anokhi Ram, father of the prosecutrix, stated that the prosecutrix did not tell him anything and only told him that she had fallen down. She must have told her husband about what had happened. She might have told Rameshwari as to what had happened. Rameshwari was examined as PW-3 but did not support the prosecution. The husband, who appeared as PW-5, stated that when he came home on 14.3.1998 his wife told him that the accused had raped her. He in cross- examination admitted that his wife had fallen in the bushes and that the accused had only lifted her from the bushes and taken her to a safer place. He specifically admitted the suggestion that the accused did not commit rape with his wife and also admitted that he had lodged a wrong report due to the mental state of mind of his wife. 5. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 5th August, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ) ™ Judge.