STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. JOGINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 6.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions case No. 47/99 (RBT No. 1/2001) whereby respondent No.1, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and respondents No.2 and 3, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable, under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, in a nutshell, is that prosecutrix (now deceased), daughter of PW-1 Arjun Singh was resident of village Matoh. According to the prosecution, her date of birth was 15.2.1985. She left her house to go to the house of her maternal uncle in village Narhoon. She was supposed to return after one month. Father of the prosecutrix, Arjun Singh came to know that his father-in-law was unwell. He went to see his father-in-law at village Narhoon. He came to know that his daughter was not there. He was apprised by his mother-in-law that she has not come. He returned to his village Matoh. Thereafter, search was made to locate his daughter. He was told that one Veena Devi wife of Parmodh Singh had told the villagers that she saw his daughter with respondent Seema Devi on 25.7.1999 around 6.30/7.00 P.M. in the field. Respondents Seema Devi and Pritam Singh are also from the village of the prosecutrix. The matter was reported to the police, which led to registration of F.I.R. Ex.PW-1/A on 9.8.1999. The matter was investigated. The prosecutrix was recovered from the forest, adjacent to village Lulhani. She was found with respondent Joginder Kumar. They were brought back to Lulhani. Thereafter, prosecutrix and respondent Joginder Kumar were medically examined. The Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan.

(3.) MR. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the charges against the respondents. According to him, the learned trial court has misread and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence. He has also argued that the prosecution has proved that prosecutrix was minor and she has been kidnapped and abducted by respondents No.2 and 3.