LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-667

RAJ BALA Vs. PARDEEP AND ANOTHER

Decided On August 21, 2015
RAJ BALA Appellant
V/S
Pardeep And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecutrix has filed the present appeal for challenging the judgment dated 27.2.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Exclusive Court, Jhajjar whereby the accused/ respondent Pardeep stands acquitted of the charges under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 25.8.2014 at about 10.30 p.m., the prosecutrix had gone to the outskirts of her village on foot in search of her son Mohit. When she reached village Bandha, one jeep came there from the side of village Dulhera. The accused, who was driving the jeep, stopped the jeep and asked her as to what she was doing there. She told him about her son having not returned home and she did not know about his whereabouts. Upon this, the accused gave her lift and said that he would help her in locating her son. The accused took her first to the Panchayati Killas of their village and, thereafter, to village Kharman where he stopped the jeep and forcibly made her to alight therefrom. After pushing her on the ground he committed rape upon her. He threatened her not to disclose about the incident to anyone or else he would kill her and her family members. The accused dropped her near the house of a barber. She could not read the registration number of the jeep because of her illiteracy. Accordingly, she submitted application to the police, on the basis of which FIR No.342 dated 26.8.2014 under Sections 376/506 IPC was registered against the accused at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned judgment, this Court finds that though the prosecutrix claimed to have been subject to sexual intercourse by the accused against her will yet during her medico-legal examination, no struggle marks were found on her face, abdomen, neck or breast, besides her private parts. Even on the vaginal swab taken by the doctor, semen was not detected in the Forensic Science Laboratory. Further, the clothes of the prosecutrix were found intact as neither any tear, rent or cut was noticed nor any stain.