JAIPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Special Judge (Crime against Women), Palwal, held trial in case registered by way of FIR No.327 dated 18.08.2012, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Palwal, on the statement of Jaipal, father of the victim girl and through impugned findings dated 17.07.2013 acquitted the accused Ravi Kumar and which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, it has very well come in the evidence of the prosecutrix PW3 herself that her date of birth is 08.09.1994 and the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 16.08.2012 and, therefore, by all means she is almost 18 years of age and though the complainant claims that she is a student of B.A.-I and her age is 131/2 years, rather goes to show the falsehood of this claim of the father which dents his credibility. The story of the girl as detailed by her father PW4 before the learned trial Court is that on 16.08.2012, the girl left her house around 07.30 am for college but never returned back and it was on suspicion that their co-villager accused must have enticed his daughter, sufficiently gives an inkling that the father was to some extent aware of this obvious relationship of the boy and the girl. The girl in her story states that she was going on train from her village to Delhi and on the threats of the accused she accompanied him to Subhash Colony, Ballabgarh, at the house of brother of the accused and in the night on that day she was ravaged by the accused. It is further her story that on 17.08.2012, she was locked in the room where the police and her uncle arrived and rescued her. Though, this version appears to be quiet promising one but in her cross-examination she accepts that the place where the accused met her at Okhla Railway Station was a crowded place and she always used to travel in ladies compartment and the accused never met her on the train and that she at that time while accompanying the accused did not raise any 'raula' and from Okhla Railway Station had travelled to Ballabgarh by train and both of them stayed at the platform of Okhla Railway Station for one hour and while going through Okhla Railway Station to Ballabgarh had travelled in a common compartment which was crowded with passengers and there also she never raised any 'raula'. It is further alleged that they travelled in an auto rickshaw from Ballabgarh Railway Station to Subhash Colony, Ballabgarh and during her journey, she never raised any 'raula' in spite of the fact that they passed through crowded area and after getting down from the auto rickshaw walked for some distance. It is her own case that the place where she was kept is situated in a densely populated inhabited area and there were other tenants in the same very building. The deposition of PW9 Dr.Alpana Saxena is very material as she has stated that during examination of the girl she did not observe any injury on her body and even her observations shows that the girl had not encountered such an occasion for the first time. From this evidence on the record, this Court is slow to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the girl was forcibly taken away and rather she volunteered to accompany the accused and her studied silence throughout her journey and stay is a clear pointer to this consent of hers. The version spelled out by the girl is highly unplausible and it is all the more unacceptable that the accused would rape the girl right in the house of his brother whose family was living with him and present at that very time in their house. The learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the girl was around major and was a consenting party to this elopement and has voluntarily surrendered herself before the accused, thus rules out commission of any offence under Sections 342, 363, 376, 366, 506 IPC.

(3.) In view of these discussions, there is no cause for granting leave. We are not inclined to interfere and the appeal being without merits, stands dismissed.