STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KAMALJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 13.10.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Sessions Trial No. 6 -ST/7 of 1999 acquitting the Respondent -accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 IPC, in reference to FIR No. 329/1998 dated 30.7.1998 of Police Station, Paonta Sahib.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the victim - prosecutrix (name not given) had been working for the last five years as maid servant in the house of the accused. In February, 1998 when the parents of the accused were not in the house, the accused committed sexual assault on her. On raising objection, the accused -Respondent assured the victim -prosecutrix to marry her and also threatened the victim -prosecutrix of life. Thereafter the accused had been performing intercourse with the victim occasionally on the promise that he would marry her. The victim -prosecutrix had been staying in the house of the accused and for couple of days in a week, she used to go to her parents. One time the accused took the victim -prosecutrix in a temple and put Sindhoor in her forehead and asked the victim not to put it regularly and not to disclose it to others. On the pretext of marriage, the accused had been sexually assaulting the prosecutrix, however, during his sexual intercourse, the victim -prosecutrix became pregnant and when victim asked the accused to marry, he ousted the victim from deployment. The prosecutrix reported this matter to her parents and matter was also taken to Panchayat, however, nothing came out fruitful. On report on behalf of the victim -prosecutrix, an FIR No. 329/1998 was lodged on 30.7.1998 and after investigation the accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 IPC.

(3.) ON scrutiny, all the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the victim -prosecutrix that she had served for about 5 years as maid servant in the house of the accused and despite having been sexually assaulted the prosecutrix did not tell about such sexual assault to anyone including her parents. Only when she has become pregnant, she tried to blame the accused that because of sexual assault, she has become pregnant. The victim -prosecutrix was a major woman and it cannot be believed that she was not a consenting party during all sexual assaults in the past. The prosecution could not bring on record that any marriage was actually solemnized and it was a legal marriage and sexual assault if at all made, it was because of the accused -Respondent and therefore, the victim -prosecutrix had become pregnant. Even if she had become pregnant, nothing has been brought on record except the statement of victim -prosecutrix that it was against the consent of victim -prosecutrix. In the facts and circumstances, if the victim -prosecutrix was tolerating such sexual assault without intimating this aspect to anyone, this cannot be presumed that it was against her wishes.