STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BUDH RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is aggrieved by the acquittal of the Respondents of the charges under Sections 376/366 - A/363/506/34 IPC.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is that on 13.6.1998, complainant Banwari Lal had gone to Muktsar to settle some dispute among his relatives. His wife Krishna had gone to the fields to bring the fuel wood. His father 'S', aged 17 years, the prosecutrix was alone at the house. At 2 PM, when Krishna returned to the house, she found 'S' missing. Inspite of search in nearby houses, she could not be traced. When the complainant returned home at 6 PM, he learnt that 'S' was missing. He went to the Sewing Centre where 'S' used to go for learning sewing. He was told that she had not gone there also. On 14.6.1998, he went to the residence of Shiv Ram, accused in Village Raman Mandi where he was told by the neighbours that the accused Shiv Ram, Dudhi Devi and Budh Ram had brought a girl from Dabwali and they had gone to Sunam with Sukhdevi. On the next day, he reached the residence of sister of Shiv Ram and met 'S' there. She disclosed that when she was going to attend the Sewing Class on 13.6.1998, she was told by Shiv Ram and Dudhi Devi, accused that their mother had a 'fit' in the village and she should accompany them. She accompanied them and at the house of Shiv Ram, she was locked inside a room by Sukhdevi. Dudhi Devi and Budh Ram and Shiv Ram, accused committed rape. On 14.6.1998, Shiv Ram, Sukhdevi and brother -in -law of Shiv Ram took her to Sunam where she was kept at the residence of brother -in -law of Shiv Ram where Shiv Ram again committed rape. On 15.6.1998, she was taken to an advocate and made to sign papers for marriage under threat. However, her father Banwari Lal took her from there to Dabwali and thereafter, complaint was lodged on 25.6,1998. Complaint Ex. PB was lodged on 25.6.1998, on which FIR was registered. She was medico -legally examined and her statement was recorded before the Magistrate. On 22.7.1998, Shiv Ram was arrested and was medico -legally examined. After receipt of report of the FSL and completion of investigation, the accused were sent up for trial.

(3.) THE accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that version of the prosecution was a counter -blast of FIR No. 133 dated 24.6.1998 under Sections 323/452/356/34 IPC. Police Station City, Dabwali registered at the instance of Daropadi against Shanti etc. The complainant party has been challaned in that case and is facing the trial. In fact the complainant party entered into the house of accused Daropadi and dragged her out in the street. Accused Daropadi was made naked and was given beatings on her private parts. She was medico legally examined and the case was registered against the complainant party. They further raised the plea that 'S' was in love with one Inder Pal to whom she had been writing the letters. The prosecutrix 'S' had eloped with said Inder Pal and had returned back. It was further pleaded that the police party did not visit the house of accused Banwari Lal situated at Sunam. The residence of accused Banwari Lal consists of only one room and it is not feasible to accommodate all the accused in one room when the wife of accused Banwari Lal had delivered a child on 15.6.1998 in that room itself. The accused also produced DW1 Gautam Parshad resident of Sunam and tendered the love letter written by the prosecutrix Ex. DC, copy of complaint moved by Siri Ram Ex. DD, copy of voter -list Ex. DE and copy of charge -sheet in the FIR No. 133 dated 24.6.1998 under Sections 323/452/149/506/509/34 IPC, Police Station City, Dabwali Ex. DF.