IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.:102/1998 Decided on: 17.3.2010 _____________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus Manjeet Singh. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J (oral). State has appealed against the judgment dated 1.9.1997 of the learned Sessions Judge whereby respondent Manjeet Singh, who was charged with and tried for offence of rape, under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly committing rape of his brother’s wife, has been acquitted. Prosecution’s case, as per evidence on record. may be summed up thus: On 26.7.1996 around 6.00 P.M. when the prosecutrix, examined as PW-2, was returning home after doing work at the house of Jaishi Ram and reached near the fields adjacent to her house, respondent accosted her and offered an 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . 2 apple, which she refused. Respondent then allegedly overpowered the prosecutrix and dragged her to nearby maize field where he committed rape on her. When in the evening, her husband PW-3 Nikka Ram reached home, she narrated the incident to him. Matter was reported to the Panchayat the next following day, but the Panchayat, under pressure from respondent, got the matter compromised. About a month thereafter report was lodged with the police and case was registered. Prosecution sought to prove the case by the testimony of prosecutrix, who appeared as PW-2, statement of her husband Nikka Ram (PW-3) and two ladies, namely, PW-4 Kaushalya Devi and PW-5 Banko Devi. One of these two ladies is the mother-in- law of the prosecutrix and the other laidy is the aunt of the husband of prosecutrix. Trial court acquitted the respondent holding that the testimony of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and that her statement is not corroborated by any evidence. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General and also counsel for respondent and gone through the evidence. Prosecutrix’s testimony is not corroborated by any evidence. We are alive to the legal proposition that the testimony of the prosecutrix can be believed and acted upon even without corroboration because she cannot be termed an accomplice in the act of sexual inter course in such a situation. However, to found conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the Court is to be satisfied that the testimony inspires confidence. In our considered opinion, the testimony of prosecutrix does not inspire 3 confidence. She lodged report with the Panchayat on the very next day of the occurrence through her husband Nikka Ram. That report is Ex.PW-3/A. In this report, there is no mention of allegation of rape. As per this report, respondent scuffled with the prosecutrix, pressed her neck and threw her on the ground. The prosecutrix entered into compromise after the aforesaid report Ex.PW-3/A was submitted. Compromise was reduced into writing. The writing is Ex.PA. It is dated 26.8.1996. As per this agreement, allegation of rape was not correct and it had been levelled on account of annoyance and anger and also on account of instigation by some people of the area. Prosecution admitted that the compromise was not got effected by the Panchayat, meaning thereby that her allegation that the Panchayat got the compromise effected under pressure from the respondent, is incorrect. Prosecutrix stated in the Court also while appearing as PW-2 that she had lodged report only when some people of the village prompted her to do so. To similar effect is the statement of her husband PW-3 Nikka Ram. The two ladies to whom the prosecutrix allegedly apprised about the incident, on return to her home, also did not corroborate her. In view of above stated position, we see no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. [[ Surjit Singh), J [ (Rajiv Sharma), J 17.3.2010 *awasthi*