IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.494 of 2000 Decided on : March 17, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Hans Raj and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 18th December, 1999, of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby respondents Hans Raj, Mehar Singh and Devinder Singh, who were tried for offence of gang-rape, under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Prosecution case, as per evidence on record, may be summed up thus. Prosecutrix, examined as PW-11, had been living with her sister at Rohru for quite some time. On 29th June, 1998, she went to Rohru Bazaar, where a lady by the name of Banku (PW-2), one more lady and respondent Hans Raj met her. PW-2 Banku suggested to the prosecutrix to accompany her to her village Dhara, where she could arrange her marriage with her son. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Prosecutrix went with her. Respondent Hans Raj, who is the son-in-law of said PW-2 Banku, and the second lady also accompanied them. Prosecutrix was taken to the house of respondent Hans Raj. She took her meals. Around 9 p.m., she went out to answer the call of nature (as per testimony in the Court). Respondent Hans Raj, who was present outside the house, dragged her to the fields. On the way, the other two respondents Mehar Singh and Davinder Singh, who had hidden themselves in the bushes, also joined Hans Raj. Prosecutrix was taken to a field by the side of a nullah, where she was gang-raped by all the three respondents. The act of rape continued till 3 O’clock. The prosecutrix was released only after the respondents got tired and felt sleepy. Prosecutrix went to the house of Hans Raj and stayed there for some time. Then she proceeded towards the Police Station. On the way, ASI Balwant Singh (PW-8) met her, to whom she reported the incident by making statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ex. PW-8/A. On the basis of this statement, case was formally registered vide FIR Ex. PW- 10/A. Prosecutrix was got medically examined. PW-9 Dr. Bhavneet Bharti conducted her medical examination. She found bluish marks on her cheeks, but no marks of tooth bite. The doctor found that the prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse, because her hymen was found absent. …3… 3. On completion of the investigation, respondents were challaned. They were charged with offence, under Sections 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, by the trial Court. On their pleading not guilty, they were put on trial. 4. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses. Witnesses examined to seek corroboration to the version of the prosecutrix turned hostile. Prosecution relied upon the testimony of the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-11, and the doctor, who conducted her medical examination, namely PW-9 Dr. Bhavneet Bharti. Respondents pleaded denial simplisiter. 5. Learned trial Court has held that the testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. Consequently, the respondents have been acquitted. 6. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age at the relevant time. To the doctor, at the time of her medical examination, she stated her age to be 20 years, per testimony of PW-9 Dr. Bhavneet Bharti. This age is recorded in the medico legal report also, which is Ex. PW-9/A. 8. Prosecutrix’ version was recorded thrice. Once, when she made statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ex. PW-8/A, second time when she …4… was medically examined (this second version is recorded in the medico legal report Ex. PW-9/A) and third time she gave her version in the Court. All the three versions are contradictory to each other. To the police, in statement Ex. PW-8/A she got recorded that she had been called out by respondent Hans Raj in the night and when she was accompanying respondent Hans Raj two other respondents joined him and all the three committed rape on her in a field. To the doctor, at the time of her medical examination, she gave a totally different version. She stated that she went to the fields to answer the call of nature, in the company of PW-2 Banku, the mother-in-law of respondent Hans Raj and when she was in the fields respondents Mehar Singh and Davinder Singh came there. They overpowered her and in the meanwhile respondent Hans Raj, son-in-law of PW-2 Banku, also reached there in drunken state and all the three respondents committed rape on her. In the Court she stated that she went outside the house of respondent Hans Raj around 9 p.m. all alone to answer the call of nature and that respondent Hans Raj, who was present outside the house pulled her towards the fields and on the way two other respondents, who were lying in ambush, accompanied Hans Raj and they all forcibly carried her to a field, where she was raped. These three totally different versions of the prosecutrix make her testimony highly doubtful. She was duly confronted with …5… her earlier version given to the police, vide statement Ex. PW-8/A. In view of the abovestated position, we see no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J March 17, 2010(sd) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J