IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 351 of 1998. Decided on: 12.05.2010. __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. … Appellant. Versus Prithivi Singh. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Ms. Aruna Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral): State has sought reversal of trial Court’s judgment dated 9th March, 1998 whereby respondent has been acquitted of charge under Sections 376 and 366-A of Indian Penal Code, by means of the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Admitted facts are that respondent had been engaged as mason by PW-1, Hari Ram, father of the prosecutrix (examined as PW-2), in December, 1996 or January, 1997. Respondent worked for quite sometime at the place of PW-1, Hari Ram. On 5th January, 1997, respondent told Hari Ram that he wanted to return to his village Dhavuri as it was time for cutting and stacking grass. Hari Ram wanted the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - construction of his house completed at the earliest, so he proposed that his two daughters, i.e. prosecutrix (PW-2) and Anita accompanied Prithvi Singh to his village to help him in grass cutting. Prithvi Singh then took prosecutrix and Anita, two daughters of Hari Ram (PW-1) to his village. The job of cutting grass was complete by 7th January, 1997. Prosecutrix and her sister, Anita then asked the respondent to take them back to their father’s place. Instead of taking them to their father’s place, respondent took both of them to Renuka Ji temple. There he performed marriage with the prosecutrix in the temple of Parshuram. He then took the two sisters to his house in village Dhavuri and during the course of night, he committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. 3. Next day, he sent Anita back to her parents in the company of his brother-in-law, Deep Ram. Anita informed her parents about the prosecutrix having been kept by Prithvi Singh. Parents of the prosecutrix accompanied by PW-4, Ajay Pal Singh then went to the house of respondent and asked him to let the prosecutrix be taken by them to their house. Respondent refused to oblige them saying that he had married her. Respondent was already married to another lady and had two issues. 4. On 11th January, 1997, PW-1, Hari Ram went to Police Station, Renuka Ji and lodged F.I.R. Ex.P-1. Police party headed by Head Constable Pritam Singh (PW-10) went to the village of the respondent. Prosecutrix was recovered from his house. Her custody was given to her parents. Prosecutrix was got medically examined. She refused to allow examination of her genitalia (private parts). Her parents also did not agree for the examination of her genitalia. No injury was found on her person. - 3 - 5. On completion of the investigation, respondent was challaned. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan. Respondent was charged by Sessions Court as aforesaid and tried for the aforesaid offences, when he pleaded not guilty to the charge. 6. Trial Court has concluded that prosecutrix had voluntarily married the respondent and stayed at his place of her own free will after the marriage and therefore, respondent was not guilty of either of the two offences. 7. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the counsel of respondent and perused the record. 8. No doubt, Hari Ram (PW-1) stated that when he went to get the prosecutrix back on 10th January, 1997, on being told by his younger daughter, Anita that respondent had married the prosecutrix, respondent not only did not allow him to take back the prosecutrix, but also confined her in a room and his statement is corroborated by PW-2, Kiran and PW- 4, Ajay Pal Singh, but, the story is belied by the statement of PW-3, Dr. Uvi Bharwal, who in no uncertain terms stated that on 11.1.1997 when the prosecutrix was brought for medical examination, though her parents complained that she had been raped, she herself stated that she had married the man, in a temple. This unequivocal statement of Dr. Uvi Bharwal (PW-3) clearly indicates that the prosecutrix not only married the respondent voluntarily, but was also not prepared to go with her parents when they went to get her back on 10.1.1997. 9. Testimony of the father of the prosecutrix, PW-1 Hari Ram that the prosecutrix was confined by the respondent in a room is not corroborated by PW-4 Ajay Pal Singh, who is alleged to have accompanied PW-1, - 4 - Hari Ram. Prosecutrix herself while appearing as PW-2 stated that she had exchanged garlands with the respondent in a temple at Renuka Ji and also taken seven rounds in the temple and at that time her sister Anita, two sisters of the respondent and the mother of the respondent were also present. Pujari of the temple, PW-7 Ram Chander was also present. He stated that the respondent and the prosecutrix exchanged garlands to marry each other, after he refused to get them married as he did not know how to perform the marriage in a temple. The witness did not say that the prosecutrix was not willing for the marriage. His statement suggests that both the parties, i.e. prosecutrix and the respondent had voluntarily married each other. Prosecutrix was 17½ years old at that time, per prosecution own evidence. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the order of acquittal calls for no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), Judge. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. May 12, 2010. (sck).