STATE OF HP Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, in Sessions Trial No. 13/95, acquitting the alleged accused No. 1 for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, other alleged accused No. 2 to 6 have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) In order to adjudicate the criminal appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix (name withheld) at that relevant time was a student of Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Government Senior Secondary School, Kullu and was learning tailoring, during the summer vacation in the school, in a Tailoring Centre at Shishamati and on 23.08.1994 had been going for tailoring centre alongwith her friends Ms. Naina Devi and Ms. Kaushalaya Devi. When they reached near Khalara Nullah, she observed a blue coloured maruti van, where accused Mohinder Singh was standing alongwith his companions and the victim was forcibly taken in the van. The other two girls were also manhandled and the prosecutrix was taken to the house of Mohinder Singh at village Chanaugi, where the victim was kept. The incident was revealed by Naina Devi and Kaushalya Devi to the mother of the prosecutrix on the same day at about 1 P.M. and in that connection, the mother of the prosecutrix visited the house of Mohinder Singh after 45 days of the incident and asked the accused Mohinder Singh to allow the prosecutrix to go to her house, however, accused had refused to send the prosecutrix back and threated the mother of the prosecutrix that she may meet the dire consequences. The mother of the prosecutrix informed her husband, Shri. Lubdhu Ram, through letter followed by a telegram, who at that time was in Army at Gorakhpur. In that reference father of the prosecutrix arrived at the village on 15.09.1994, who alongwith mother of the prosecutrix and Prithvi Raj, Vice President, went to the Police Station. However, at that time as per advice of the police, FIR was not lodged to save the reputation of the family of the prosecutrix. As per advice, uncle of the prosecutrix, Shri Moti Ram and Prithvi Raj, Vice President, visited the house of the accused and on their request, prosecutrix was not allowed to go back to the house of her parents and thereafter father of the prosecutrix lodged FIR on 18.09.1994, i.e., by delay of 25 days. After completion of investigation, accused persons were charged for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined thirteen witnesses, whereas, the accused through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have denied the prosecution case.