LAWS(HPH)-2010-5-88

STATE OF H.P. Vs. GHAN SHYAM

Decided On May 04, 2010
STATE OF H.P. Appellant
V/S
GHAN SHYAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 27.6.1995 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Sessions Trial No. 31 -S/7 of 92 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that on 4.1.1992 the prosecutrix was sent by her mother, PW -2 Laxmi Devi, to fetch milk and other house hold articles from the market in Chhota Shimla. She did not return till evening and thereafter PW -2 started searching for the prosecutrix. Despite her best efforts the prosecutrix could not be found. The prosecutrix came back to her house on 11th January, 1992 alongwith her brother -in -law (son -in -law of PW -2) Rup Ram (PW -3). Then the prosecutrix informed her mother that on 4th January, 1992 when she was in the market she met the accused. The accused told the prosecutrix that he was well known to her family members and that he had a younger brother with whom he could get her married. Thereafter, he first asked her to arrange some money and she arranged Rs. 600/ -, out of which she borrowed Rs. 500/ - from one Advocate Shri Verma and Rs. 100/ - from one Smt. Gita Devi, wife of Executive Engineer Shri Dhaulta. Then she handed over this amount of Rs. 600/ - to the accused, who then took her to his residence at Vikas Nagar and kept her there for two days. The girl started crying and therefore on 11.1.1992 at about 7.00 p.m the accused dropped the girl behind the H.P. Secretariat, Chhota Shimla. It was also disclosed that the accused works in HPPWD in Winter Field, Shimla.

(3.) FROM the prosecution story itself it is evident that it was the prosecutrix who borrowed money from Shri Dile Ram Verma and Smt. Dhaulta. Admittedly, she did not tell them that she had been threatened by the accused. If she could go to them and borrow money, she could have easily told them that the accused is forcibly taking her away. This clearly indicates that she went of her own free Will. The prosecutrix did not complain to Dile Ram Verma and Smt. Dhaulta but she walked with the accused from Chhota Shimla to the High Court, then to Vikas Nagar and then travelled in a bus to Suni. She again travelled in a bus from Suni to Rohru and never raised an alarm or made a complaint. All these facts leave no manner of doubt that the prosecutrix went willingly with the accused.