SONI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 23.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby respondent No.2-Arvind Singh has been acquitted of the charges under Sec. 376 Penal Code.

(2.) As per the prosecution version, the prosecutrix moved a complaint to the police of Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon on 24.5.2013 alleging therein that she hails from Behara Galampur, Distt. Munger (Bihar) and is presently residing in House No.239, Room No.48, Village Dundahera, Tehsil and Distt. Gurgaon. Her parents had died and she was brought up by her aunt (mausi) Smt. Anjila Devi. Accused respondent No.2-Arvind Singh, who also hails from Bihar, was working in plot No.201, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. He obtained a mobile phone number of the prosecutrix and started contacting her. Both of them developed good friendship which was later on converted into love affair. The prosecutrix had been residing with respondent No.2-Arvind Singh for the last four years who had brought her from Inderpuri, Delhi to Gurgaon under the pretext of marriage. The prosecutrix had been residing with him in a house in village Dundahera belonging to one Devinder Yadav. They both have been residing therein as husband and wife. Arvind used to have sexual intercourse with her under the pretext of marriage but now he has refused to perform marriage despite her repeated requests. Now, he has started saying that he was living with her just for enjoyment and would not perform marriage with her. On these allegations, the present case was registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 Penal Code. During the investigation, respondent-Arvind Singh was arrested and on completion of the formalities of the investigation, the report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C was presented in the Court.

(3.) The case was committed to the Court of session for trial by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon vide order dated 4.7.2013. Respondent No.2 was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses.