CHARANPREET KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecutrix has filed the present appeal for challenging the judgment dated 12.1.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby respondent -Sukhpreet Singh @ Vicky was acquitted of the charges under Sections 328, 376 and 506 IPC.

(2.) WHILE lodging the FIR, the prosecutrix had stated that the accused, who was her husband's friend, used to visit her house. Some days back, he had come to her house when her son was not present there. The accused had brought bottle of cold drink and asked the prosecutrix to bring two glasses. The prosecutrix went to the prayer room of her house and when she returned, the accused offered her cold drink. After taking the cold drink, she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she noticed that she and the accused were in naked condition. When she protested, the accused threatened her that he had prepared her video in naked condition and would upload the same on the internet. The accused continued to stay in her house. When her brother came to her house to leave her children, he inquired from her but due to fear, she could not disclose anything to her brother. Thereafter, she, alongwith her brother, went to the house of the accused and disclosed everything to the father of the accused, who called the accused on telephone and asked him to return home but he did not listen to his father nor left her house. Only when the prosecutrix called the police that the accused was taken away from her house. In order to save her reputation, she did not disclose anything to the police. The accused sent her video on mobile of her children and also uploaded the same on the internet. When the people called upon her, she felt insulted. Her husband also called her from Malaysia and stated that he did not want to keep her in his house.

(3.) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW1 and Dr. M.S. Bajwa as PW2. In her examination -in -chief, which was recorded in camera, she testified that she was married and mother of two sons. Her husband was residing at Malaysia. The accused was a very good friend of her husband and used to visit her house so as to enquire about her health. The accused had never committed rape with her. Noticing that the prosecutrix had resiled from her statement, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor requested the trial Court to declare her hostile. The request was allowed and the Additional Public Prosecutor was allowed to cross -examine her. In her cross -examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecutrix did not utter a single word about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime. She denied about the accused giving her soft drink as a result of which she had become unconscious or that on regaining consciousness she was found lying naked or the accused threatening her that he had prepared video which he would upload on the internet. She also denied that she had disclosed all the facts to the father of the accused. Of course, when her attention was drawn towards statement mark -A made to the police, she denied having made any such statement. According to her, the police had obtained her signatures on blank papers. She also denied making of statement Ex.PA under Section 164 Cr.P.C.