STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. DEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant case, F.I.R. was lodged by the victim. As will be evidenced from the F.I.R., she was married to accused Deep Singh, but the victim was allegedly raped by Deep Singh on the day before her marriage. F.I.R. goes on to say that, after the marriage, Deep Singh had taken the victim to his residence, where the victim was kept, but an attempt was being made to sell her off. The victim escaped from the house of Deep Singh and, thereafter, filed the F.I.R. (sic) the F.I.R., it was alleged that Deep Singh was assisted by his mother Paramjeet Kaur. This F.I.R. led, on completion of investigation, filing of a charge -sheet for offences punishable under Sections 376, 498A, 342 and 120B of I.P.C. against Deep Singh and for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 342 and 120B of I.P.C. against Paramjeet Kaur. The entire case was attempted to be established on the basis of the oral evidence of the victim. The victim did not give any evidence, which could establish the charge framed under Sections 498A, 342 and 120B of I.P.C. The victim was also solely relied for proving the charge framed under Section 376 of I.P.C. The victim, in so many words, though had said that she was raped by Deep Singh on the night previous to the date she got married to Deep Singh, the evidence to that effect has not been accepted by the court below, principally, for the reason that, on the basis of the other evidence brought on record, Deep Singh on that date, could not get hold of the victim inside the room indicated by her situate on the ground floor of the building. In the grounds of appeal, there is not a single whisper that the court below, while appreciating the evidence tendered by the victim in that regard made even a slightest mistake and, if such mistake was not done, the verdict would have been different. While the investigation into the F.I.R. was totally directionless, the attempt made by the prosecution before the trial court to prove the charges was similarly directionless, but surprisingly the L.R. looked into the matter, thereafter the G.A. looked into the matter and, ultimately, the matter was looked into by the Government lawyer, who drafted the grounds of appeal, but all of them acted like a machine without mind. The appeal attempted to be filed is nothing but to harass the respondents. We, accordingly, dismiss the application seeking leave to prefer appeal. Consequentially, the appeal fails. We have with great efforts restrained ourselves from imposing exemplary cost in the matter.