SUNITA MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT - appellant aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 5 of the charge of the offence punishable under Sections 376, 120 -B IPC vide judgment dated 27.05.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana has preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that FIR No. 215 dated 09.06.2008 was registered under Section 376 IPC on the statement of the complainant prosecutrix. She was married to Rajesh Malhotra on 26.05.1998. A son Abhinav Malhotra was born out of this wedlock. She came to know that her husband Rajesh Malhotra suffered from a medical condition 'psychosis disorder' on the very first day of her marriage when she came to her matrimonial home. He is under continuous medical treatment under Dr. Manish of Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana. She came to know that he would remain mentally unwell through out his life but despite her husband's condition, she tried to lead her marital life peacefully. Few days after marriage, her father -in -law Nempal Malhotra - respondent No. 3 told her that her husband is a mentally retarded person but she would get full rights in the family if he would satisfy him mentally, physically and sexually. Similar demand was allegedly raised by her husband's brother Murli Malhotra - respondent No. 5. Appellant disclosed this fact to her mother, who told her to refuse such illegal demands. On her refusal, behaviour of all the family members changed. They maltreated her and compelled her to live separately. She started knitting and stitching for her living. Raj Kumar - respondent No. 2 used to visit their house to take away shawls and sweaters from their home and he used to pay labour charges. Father -in -law Nempal Malhotra - respondent No. 3, mother -in -law Usha Rani - respondent No. 4 and brother -in -law Murli Malhotra - respondent No. 5 conspired and devised a plan to throw her out of her matrimonial home. Pursuant to this plan, Raj Kumar - respondent No. 2 came to her house on 06.06.2008 at about 8.30 p.m. On inquiry as to why he had come so late, he replied that he had come to pay labour charges on which she opened the gate. Respondent - Raj Kumar entered her home and closed the door. He was drunk and holding a knife in his hand. He threatened her that in case she would shout or raise alarm, he would kill her son. He committed rape upon her despite stiff resistance put up by her. Her brother -in -law and father -in -law locked the door and gathered people of the area by raising lot of noise. On opening the gate, they gave her severe beating. Despite her pleading that she was subjected to force, no one listened to her. They left Raj Kumar after beating him and she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. It is urged that due to the complainant not having cordial relations with members of her in -laws family, this was premeditated plan of her in -laws alongwith Raj Kumar Sharma.

(3.) PROSECUTION led evidence to prove its case. On closure of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. whereby they pleaded innocence and false implication in this case.