NEELAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecutrix, who was admittedly major at the time of the occurrence, has filed the present application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking permission for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20.01.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak whereby accused Naresh, respondent No. 2 herein, stands acquitted of the charges under Sections 366, 323 and 376 IPC.

(2.) According to the prosecution, on 9.1.2015 a telephone call was received at Police Station, Meham from PGIMS, Rohtak regarding admission of the prosecutrix as a case of poison. On receipt of information, SI Anup Singh, alongwith other police officials, reached the said hospital and after collecting medical ruqa, case property, etc. and obtaining the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of the prosecutrix to make the statement, learnt about rape having been committed upon her after administering her some poisonous substance. Accordingly, SI Anup Singh informed Inspector Garima, Incharge, Women Cell, Rohtak, who sent L/SI Hawa Kaur to the hospital. SI Hawa Kaur contacted Ms. Ranjana Rapria, Advocate, who told that she was at Chandigarh at that time. Accordingly, she recorded the statement of the prosecutrix to the effect that she was studying in J.B.T. 1st year. On that day, i.e. 9.1.2015. at about 9.30 a.m., she was going to Meham for her studies on foot. On the way, the accused accosted her, who after abusing and beating her forcibly made her to accompany him on his motorcycle. He took her to Meham bus stand where on the backside of the bushes he forcibly committed rape upon her. When she told that she would reveal about the incident to the family members, he forcibly administered some poisonous substance to her and fled from the spot. On hearing her cries, a man came there and asked about the matter. She revealed everything to him, who telephonically informed her family members. Her family members came there and got her admitted in General Hospital, Meham from where she was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and on going through the impugned judgment of acquittal, this Court finds that though in her first statement made before the police the prosecutrix had alleged that the accused forcibly committed rape upon her yet while in the witness box as PW8, she stated that the accused forcibly took her on his motorcycle and attempted to commit rape upon her in the bushes on the backside of the bus stand. Thus, she did not implicate the accused for committing rape upon her. PW1 Dr. Kulgaurav, who had medico-legally examined the prosecutrix stated in his cross-examination that the patient was brought by her brother Praveen. At that time, she was conscious and oriented. She had given history of ingestion of some unknown substance at a private school in Meham at about 1.00 p.m. She did not give any history of sexual assault. The prosecutrix was not examined at General Hospital, Meham. It has come in the evidence that thereafter she was medico-legally examined from a Board of Doctors headed by PW5 Dr. Roopa Malik, who gave opinion on the basis of findings of the Board that there was nothing to suggest forcible intercourse on the prosecutrix.