LAWS(P&H)-2010-3-64

STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

Decided On March 05, 2010
STATE OF HARYANA Appellant
V/S
MANOJ KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Haryana has filed this application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr. P.C. against the judgment dated 28.7.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby respondent Manoj Kumar has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 452, 376 and 506 IPC.

(2.) IN the present case, the prosecution was launched against the respondent on the complaint made by the prosecutrix to the police wherein it was stated that on the day of the occurrence, her brother had gone out to his native village for some personal work. Therefore, the prosecutrix was asked by her mother to sleep with her sister-in-law (brother's wife) in her room in the night of 22.3.2008. At about 11.00 PM in the night, respondent Manoj Kumar entered in the room and committed rape upon the prosecutrix against her wishes. It has been further alleged that during the course of incident, the accused threatened her to kill if she raised any noise. It has been further alleged that while the respondent was inside the room, one Tulsi was kept standing outside the house. After the incident, the respondent ran away from the house and thereafter the prosecutrix raised noise. Then her brother's wife, who was sleeping in the nearby cot and her parents, who were sleeping on the roof of adjoining house, got up. They saw the respondent and said Tulsi running away from the spot.

(3.) THE aforesaid complaint was made to the police after two days. After registration of the formal FIR, the prosecutrix was medico-legally examined. Dr. Veena Rani (PW6) had medico-legally examined the prosecutrix on 24.3.2008. According to her, secondary characters of prosecutrix were fully developed and the vagina was admitting two fingers. In the opinion of the doctor, the prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse. The vaginal swab of the prosecutrix was taken. However, according to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P6), the semens were not detected either on the underwear of the prosecutrix or her vaginal swab.