STATE OF H P Vs. BHAGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions trial No. 27-ST/7 of 1998 decided on 14.10.1999 whereby the accused were acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 451 and 376 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix, who is a married lady aged about 30 years was residing in village Bagadi. She had three minor children. On 31.1.1998 she was alone at her house since her husband had gone to visit some relatives. At about 7.00 p.m when her children had gone to sleep, accused Bhagat Ram came to her house and on coming to know that her husband was away he tried to molest her. She resisted his advances and in fact she used an iron pipe (used to blow air on the kitchen hearth) to hit Bhagat Ram. In the meantime, the second accused Bhagwan Singh entered the house and snatched the iron pipe from her. He blew off the lamp and thereafter Bhagat Ram pulled off her Salwar and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. Bhagwan Singh was waiting outside with intention of raping her after Bhagat Ram had done so. In the meantime, hearing the shouts of the prosecutrix her neighbour Deep Ram came to the spot. He gave a shout outside the house as to what is happening and on hearing his shout both the accused ran away. THEreafter, the prosecutrix sent for her husband and next day i.e. on 1.2.1998 report was lodged at Police Station, Renuka. THE prosecutrix was medically examined. After investigation the accused were charged with having committed the offences aforesaid. THEy pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial the learned trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal by the State.

(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecutrix, she kept wearing the same clothes till she was examined by the doctor. The version of the prosecutrix is two fold. Firstly that the string of the Salwar was broken and then the Salwar was pulled down. If that were true then the prosecutrix could not go to the police station without putting in a fresh string or retying the old string. When the clothes were opened in the Court there was no string in the Salwar and the prosecutrix virtually gave no explanation, how she held up her salwar till her examination by the doctor on the next day. She admittedly walked on foot and then travelled by bus to the police station and then went to the hospital. Even the doctor would have noticed the fact whether the Salwar was tied properly with a string or not. The doctor did not find any semen on the private part of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix while appearing in Court gave an explanation that the accused had ejaculated on the wooden floor. There is nothing to show that any semen was removed from the wooden floor. Her statement also is that the Salwar had been removed and kept aside. Therefore, the semen stains on the Salwar would not be related to the act of sexual intercourse. Furthermore, this is not a case where there is denial of the act of sex but it is a case where it is virtually alleged that the act of sex was a consensual act.