STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. HARINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On acquittal of the respondent for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge Sirmour District, at Nahan, H.P., the present appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) has been preferred by the State.

(2.) In brief, the prosecution case was that the prosecutrix (PW-10) (name withheld) had appeared in her matriculation examination in the year 1995. On 6th June, 1995, she had gone to the school at Paonta Sahib to know her result. On declaration of the result she found that she was placed in compartment. While she was coming back from the school, the respondent is stated to have met her on the way. He was known to her earlier. According to the prosecutrix, he had been making advances towards her and was impressing upon her to inculcate a relationship with him. In order to make believe that there was no compulsion for the prosecutrix to accompany the respondent, she stated that he held out that he had some photographs of her with him. Such statement appears to have been made for the reason to suggest that there was an element of black mailing on the part of the respondent to make the prosecutrix agree to accompany him. Be it as it may be, the prosecutrix accompanied the accused. According to her, she was taken to Devi Nagar, Paonta Sahib. There they stayed upto 1 p.m. Thereafter the respondent is stated to have gone out after locking the prosecutrix in the tenanted room hired by him saying that he was going to bring food for her. The respondent returned to the room at 4.00 p.m., but without any food. Thereafter he offered her tea and again left her in the room which was locked from outside. Then he came back at 7.30 p.m. Further narrative is to the effect that she was then sent to the Petrol Pump belonging to one Baweja in a rickshaw driven by one Budh Ram. The respondent also followed him on a bicycle.

(3.) In the chain of narrative, the prosecutrix stated that thereafter she was taken by the respondent to Kurukshetra. There she was made to stay at the house of his sister, who arranged the services of some advocate, apparently with a view to arrange the marriage of the prosecutrix with the respondent. However, the advocate declined to oblige saying that since the prosecutrix was below the marriageable age, that is, 18 years, legally the marriage could not be performed. The allegations levelled by the prosecutrix against the respondent are also to the effect that he had subjected her to forcible act of sex at Moginand and Kurukshetra.