STATE OF H P Vs. KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 18.9.1999 delivered by the Learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1996 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) On 18.4.1995, Sh. Rasalu, father of the prosecutrix (PW/2) lodged a complaint (Ext.PA) with the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba to the effect that his daughter (the prosecutrix) who was a minor had been kidnapped by the accused Karam Singh alongwith Hari Ram, Dasi, Kishan, Chanchlo, Lachhoo, Janta, Dharam Singh, Lal Dei, Inder and Mahesh. According to the complainant, the prosecutrix had been kidnapped with the intention of getting her married to the accused Karam Singh. Thereafter, the police swung into action and on 26.4.1995 the accused and the prosecutrix were recovered in the area of 'Purbet Nallah'. The accused was arrested and the custody of the prosecutrix was handed over to her parents. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her statement was recorded. The accused was also got medically examined. After completion of investigation, it was found that the prosecutrix had not only been kidnapped/abducted but had also been raped by the accused. Thereafter, a challan was filed and the accused was charged for the aforesaid offences. He pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. After trial, the accused was acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State.

(3.) The prosecutrix appeared as PW/1. From a perusal of her statement itself, it is apparent that after she was allegedly abducted by the accused from the jungle where she had gone to graze cattle, the accused had taken her to his house at village Aayal where the prosecutrix was living with the parents, brothers and sisters of the accused in the same room. She admitted that she did not complain to the sisters of the accused that she had been forcibly brought by the accused. She did not complain that she was forcibly restrained or confined in the house by the accused. She also admitted that her grandmother was residing in village Aayal itself but she did not even make an effort to talk to her grandmother. She did not complain to any person that she had been forcibly brought by the accused to his house or that she had been raped by him. Even on medical examination, no injury has been found on her person. It is, therefore, more than apparent that the prosecutrix accompanied the accused and stayed with him for about seven days of her own free will. Even when she was recovered by the police, it was not that she has been illegally restrained or confined by the accused. She was freely moving around with the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was forcibly taken away against her wishes.