TILAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1986 dated July 3, 1986. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused-appellant was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, one Renu Bala daughter of Pritam Singh went to the house of Shakuntla Devi in village Lamaini, on July 4, 1985 to attend a Shagun ceremony. The accused who is the son of the brother-in-law of Shakantala Devi was also present there. At about 6 PM, on that day, Shakuntala Devi asked Renu Bala to bring bedding from the house of the accused but she refused to go because the accused had passed ugly remarks against her. But when again Shakuntala Devi compelled her to bring bedding from the house of the accused, accordingly she went there. She was served with tea by Kaushalya, the mother of the accused. Thereupon, Renu Bala felt giddiness and came back to the house of Shakuntala Devi. The accused followed her and threatened with knife to accompany otherwise she would be done to death. Therefore, she accompanied accused on his moped to the Bus Stand from where they boarded bus for Udhampur, where they stayed together in a hotel. Thereafter, they left for Srinagar. At both these places i.e. Udhampur and Srinager, the accused committed rape on her forcibly against her will. She was also compelled to go for civil marriage with the accused but she refused. From Srinagar, the accused took her to Kangra where she was given beatings by some persons at the instance of the accused for getting her signatures on a blank paper. From Kangra, the accused took her to the house of his aunt at Sujanpur where she was subjected to sexual intercourse without her consent. On the next day, the accused took her to the house of one Amar Nath at Pathankot where also the accused subjected her to intercourse, and also made many efforts to persuade her for civil marriage but she refused. Thereafter, the accused took her to the Courts at Pathankot where the police took her into custody and the accused fled away. The police gave her custody to her father. Thereafter, the father of Renu Bala met Sub Inspector Dharamvir who was the S.H.O. Police Station City Gurdaspur and gave a report to him regarding abduction of his daughter, on the basis of which a case was registered against the accused. After Renu Bala was taken into custody on 17.7.1985 at Court premises Pathankot, her custody was given to her father but she was not medically examined. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused and registered a case under Sections 363/366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions as the offence was triable by the court of Sessions exclusively. The learned Additional Sessions, Judge framed charge against the accused under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and marked documents. On the basis of the evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 363 IPC but convicted him for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused preferred the above appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence on record clearly shows that the prosecutrix Renu Bala went alongwith the accused of her own free will and she stayed with the appellant for about 15 days and that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse and both of them wanted to marry each other and her evidence in the Court is quite contrary to the statement given to the Police and further, according to the learned counsel, Renu Bala did not make any complaint or complained to any one during the period of 13 days when the accused and Renu Bala stayed at different places and the learned counsel for the appellant further argued that Renu Bala gave a statement before the Executive Magistrate at Kangra and Renu Bala was identified by an Advocate Sh. V.K. Mahajan and the said advocate was examined as DW.1 and there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of DW. 1. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. And on the other hand, the accused placed material before the Court to show that Renu Bala was a consenting party and she accompanied him on her own free will as the parents of Renu Bala were compelling her to merry her with an old man against her wishes. Therefore, he contended that the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are liable to be set aside.

(3.) IT is thus to be seen whether Renu Bala accompanied the accused of her own free will and, therefore, the accused has not committed any offence.