STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent was prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under Sections 363, 376 IPC but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions trial No. 15/1996 has acquitted the Respondent on 23.8.1999.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that PW -4 prosecutrix was studying in 10th standard, Government Senior Secondary School, Chauntra in March, 1995. She was below 18 years. On 8.3.1995 prosecutrix had left her house to appear in final examination of Sanskrit paper. PW -3 Monica and one Madhu had also accompanied the prosecutrix. At about 8.00 a.m. on 8.3.1995 the Respondent was noticed coming from Jogindernagar towards Dak -bagra in a taxi bearing registration No. HP -02 -2274. The Respondent forcibly took the prosecutrix in the taxi towards Baijnath. He threatened PW -3 Monica and Madhu not to disclose the incident to anyone otherwise they would be similarly treated. The Respondent took prosecutrix to various places in Mandi District from 8.3.1995 to 16.3.1995. On 16.3.1995 Respondent dropped the prosecutrix at Mandi where she stayed at the house of sister of her father. On 17.3.1995 the prosecutrix returned to her house. She narrated the incident to her father PW -1 Jai Singh. PW -1 reported the matter to police and FIR Ex.PW -1/A was registered. The Respondent was arrested on 22.3.1995.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge has misconstrued and mis -interpreted the evidence on record. The prosecution has proved the case against the Respondent. The inference drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge from the evidence while acquitting the Respondent is wrong. He has submitted that in these circumstances, the impugned judgment may be set -aside and Respondent may be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the Respondent. There is no mis -reading and misconstruction of evidence in the impugned judgment.