LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-605

KAMLESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On February 11, 2014
KAMLESH KUMARI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the prosecutrix whereby under the provisions of Section 378 Cr.P.C., she has challenged judgment dated 05.10.2013 of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot whereby the respondent -accused stood acquitted of the charges under Section 376 /420 of the IPC.

(2.) THE concise allegations of the prosecutrix are that she was resident of Shahpur Kandi carrying on stitching work and one Sanjeev Kumar was living in her neighbourhood and the accused Tilak Raj is his nephew and is visiting in routine the house of Sanjeev Kumar. It is alleged that in the year 2007 prosecutrix met the accused at the house of Sanjeev Kumar where the accused showed his willingness to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix and Asha Rani wife of Sanjeev Kumar prodded the prosecutrix into it to which the prosecutrix and her mother agreed and the proposal was finalised. The claim of the appellant is that the accused used to call her on her mobile phone and on his insistence the prosecutrix met the accused on several occasions where accused ravaged her and the prosecutrix kept quite on the premise that they are going to enter into a wedlock. It is alleged that on 03.09.2011 around 10.30 A.M. while the prosecutrix had come to the house of one Joginder Singh in Jugial Colony, the accused pestered her to satisfy his lust to which she initially refused. However, the accused forcibly ravaged her. It is alleged that after the accused joined the military service, he refused to interact with her and has gone back of his promise of marrying her and rather had been threatened leading to her complaint to the police, who failed to act into the matter and thereafter on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the case was got registered.

(3.) THE prosecutrix in her evidence examined herself as PW -1 and in support of her case examined PW -2 to PW -11. The accused in a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and examined three witnesses in his defence culminating into this acquittal.