STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Criminal Appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment dated 31.3.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 20 -N/7 of 2001 acquitting the accused/respondent for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC in reference to F.I.R. No. 52 of 2001, dated 6.8.2001, Police Station Renuka Ji, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that complainant Sh. Bal Kishan r/o village Khairi Changan had eight sons and three daughters. The youngest of whom was the prosecutrix (PW -4) who at the relevant time was about 17 years of age and who with the permission of her parents went to fetching grass from the grassland and for that she proceeded towards the grassland where she came across the accused accompanied by one Chaman Lal and two ladies, where accused expressed his desire to marry the victim and on her refusal to marry the accused, Chaman Lal threatened her and asked if she did not accompany the accused, she would be killed and then Chaman Lal took out a knife and threatened her and under the threats the victim silently accompanied the accused and boarded the jeep parked nearby in which she was taken to Nahan and from there to village Naar Nauti where she and the accused stayed in the house of Sh. Jungveer Singh, brother of the accused and on the following day she was recovered by the police accompanied by Prem Singh, brother of the prosecutrix, from the house of Jungveer Singh. However, on investigation accused was charged for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) IN cross -examination, she/PW -4 had reiterated that she was threatened by Chaman Lal and two ladies. Police did not inquire about the colour of the jeep. She further stated in cross -examination that accused was familiar to her/victim since childhood and before this occurrence accused had expressed his desire to marry her for more than once and every time she refused to oblige. However, such fact was not revealed to her parents nor any of relations that the accused wanted to marry her. As stated by the victim on 5.8.2001 victim was also in the house of the accused 'smaternal uncle but the victim did not talk to the accused.