STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. PARVINDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Government Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 15/2/2013 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2012, "State Vs. Parvinder alias Parveen Sajwan and Irfan", whereby the respondents-accused persons are acquitted from the offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re- appreciation of the evidences on record is that, on 26/7/2012 at 18.20 p.m., father of the prosecutrix, PW3, lodged an F.I.R., Ex-ka4 through his written information, Ex-ka1, with the allegations that his daughter/prosecutrix, aged about 17 years, went to purchase books at Chamba on 24/7/2012. She did not return home till sunset, and thereafter a search was made, but in vain. A call was received by him from mobile phone number 8126383889 in the night of 25/7/2012. The caller informed him that his daughter was with him and he wanted to marry his daughter. On the morning of 26/7/2012, the informant received an information that his daughter was at Chamba Crossroad. He along with other villagers went there and found that two persons were in conversation with his daughter at Old Tehri Road. Both of them tried to escape, but respondent-accused Parvinder was caught at the spot and another accused, Irfan, was caught from the workshop. Both the accused persons were brought to the police station. On asking the prosecutrix, it was found that both the accused persons locked her in the workshop from 24/7/2012. She also informed that the accused Parvinder used to come to her school and lure her with his marriage proposal. On the basis of the written report of the informant, the F.I.R. was registered under Ss. 363 and 366 of the I.P.C. against both the accused. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Code") on 28/7/2012 and she was medically examined on 29/8/2012. A stained blue coloured Jeans Pantaloon of the prosecutrix was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Uttarakhand and according to the report dtd. 31/10/2012 of the Laboratory, semen was detected but blood could not be detected on the Jeans Pantaloon. The matter was investigated and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The charge under Sec. 376(g) of the I.P.C. was framed against both the accused. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to establish the charge, examined, altogether, five witnesses. Medical report of the prosecutrix has not been disputed by the accused persons under Sec. 294 of the Code. The respondents-accused persons were examined under Sec. 313 of the Code. Learned trial court heard arguments, appreciated the evidences and held that the prosecution has not been successful to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.

(3.) Due to the death of the respondent-accused Parvinder during the appeal, the appeal was abated against him under subsection (1) of Sec. 394 of the Code.