STATE OF H P Vs. JAGMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Sessions trial No.59-N/7 of 1994/93 dated 17.6.1995 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) On 11.11.1991 a complaint was made by PW-2 Jagan Nath, father of the prosecutrix, at Police Station Sadar, Nahan. In this complaint, it was alleged that on 30.10.1991 his daughter who is aged about 17 years was in the house alongwith her younger sister. The complainant went to the fields leaving his two daughters at home. When he returned at 8.00 p.m, the prosecutrix was missing. He searched for her but could not trace her out. He came to know from one Bachna Ram that accused Jagmal, who was working in the Ogli Paper Mills, Kala-Amb, was also missing for the last 10-11 days. This aroused the suspicion of the complainant and accordingly complaint was lodged. On 12.11.1991, the prosecutrix was recovered. She was medically examined at 4.10 p.m. at district hospital Nahan. Thereafter, the investigation was completed and challan filed. Since the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused after trial has been acquitted. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) It is not disputed that the prosecutrix was more than 16 years at the relevant time. In fact, the evidence indicates that she was more than 18 years old at the time of the occurrence. Her version is that on 30.10.1991 when father and brother had gone to harvest the paddy crop the accused came to her house. He was known to her. He told her he would marry her and therefore, she voluntarily accompanied him. The accused asked her to meet him at the bus stand at Barara in Haryana. She all alone took a Tonga till Rasulpur. At Rasulpur she boarded a bus for Barara. She also took some money and clothes from her house. This shows that she went of her own accord. At Barara she met the accused and both of them then took a bus to Ambala. From Ambala they took a train to Delhi and stayed at the Railway-Station Delhi. Then the accused and the prosecutrix went to Gauhati by train where they stayed at the Railway-Station for 2-3 days. In this entire sequence of events, the prosecutrix does not allege that she was forced to accompany the accused or that he threatened her. She had willingly gone with him. The father and uncle of the accused in fact went to Gauhati and traced the accused. Thereafter, the father and uncle of the accused brought back the accused and the prosecutrix to Delhi. Then they proceeded to Kurukshetra. The prosecutrix admits that at Kurukshetra she signed some papers for the performance of a marriage. She also admits that she made a statement in an office that she wanted to marry the accused and that she was more than 18 years of age. It is only in Court she stated that she was threatened but no particulars of the threats have been given. She admits that thereafter the accused took her to village Dheen and then to Malana where in a temple they exchanged garlands and performed the marriage ceremony. It is only thereafter the accused subjected her to sexual intercourse.