STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SAMAS DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 7.10.1996 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1995 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 366, 368 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix is the daughter of the complainant Sh. Shuker Din (PW-3). The complainant filed a complaint (Ext. PD) with the police on 1.10.1991 to the effect that on 25.9.1991 at about 12 O' Clock midnight Gulzar Mohammad (Accused No. 2) came to the house of the complainant. He enticed the prosecutrix and kidnapped her and took her to his house with the intention of marrying her. It was also alleged that accused had raped the prosecutrix. The father searched for the prosecutrix up to 29.9.1991. Then he came to know that she had been taken by accused Gulzar Mohammad and was being kept in the house of Gulab Din (accused No. 3). He went to the house of Gulab Din and found that accused Gulzar Mohammad was terrorizing the prosecutrix with intention to forcibly agreeing her for marriage. Thereafter the complaint was filed. This complaint was endorsed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to the S.H.O. on 3.10.1991 and F.I.R. (Ext. PF) was registered on 4.10.1991. Thereafter the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of Accused No. 3 vide memo Ext. PE. The prosecution case itself is that at the time the prosecutrix was recovered she was sleeping with Gulzar Mohammad (Accused No. 2). Samas Din (Accused No. 1) is the second husband of the mother of accused Gulzar Mohammad i.e. the step father of the main accused. As far as accused Bakhat Mohammad is concerned he is alleged to have given refuge to the accused and the prosecutrix and therefore has been arrayed as accused. Gulab Din (Accused No. 3) died during the pendency of the appeal and as such appeal against him stands abated.

(3.) After the recovery of the prosecutrix she was got medically examined from Dr. Anju Puri (PW-2) who found that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse. She was radiologically examined to determine her age and as per the Radiologist her age was between 14 ? and 17 years. On this basis challan was filed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial the learned Trial Court acquitted all the accused. Hence the present appeal by the State.