STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 04.10.2000, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which, it acquitted the accused (now respondent).

(2.) THE facts, in brief are that, on 05.02.1999, the prosecutrix, aged about 15/16 years, daughter of Dilan Kumari, complainant, left home, at about 9.00 AM, for her school, but did not come back. The complainant tried her level best to locate her. When she could not find any clue, with regard to the whereabouts of the prosecutrix, she made a statement PB, on 14.02.1999, expressing her suspicion against the accused. She also stated that Rama Ram alias Ramu, accused, used to tease her daughter, on her way to school and had refused to desist from his nefarious designs, despite warnings, given to him. She further stated that the room of the accused at Derabassi, was also found locked, since the day her daughter was found missing. On the basis of the statement exhibit PB, made by Dilan Kumari, formal First Information Report, exhibit PB/2, was registered, under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) ON 15.02.1999, the medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix was conducted. Dr. Anita Mohindru, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Dera Bassi, found that the hymen of the prosecutrix was ruptured and the vagina admitted one finger easily. She, however, did not find any external mark of injury on her person. The accused was also got medico-legally examined and was found fit to conduct sexual intercourse. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was produced before Ms. Navjot Sohal, Illaqa Magistrate, Rajpura, for recording her statement, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Her statement, exhibit PA/2, was recorded, by the Illaqa Magistrate, wherein, she stated that she was having love affair with the accused and she had a soft corner for him. She further stated that she accompanied the accused to Chandigarh and then to Renukot (Uttar Pradesh), from where, they were apprehended. She, in clear-cut terms, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that, at no stage, she was subjected to rape by the accused. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.