STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. BALWANT CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 1 -3 -2001, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 5 -S/7 of 1997, thereby acquitting the Respondent/accused for offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) AS per the prosecution story, the victim/prosecutrix, a student of IX class, on 17 -9 -1994, went to Government High School, Gumma along with Reshma sister -in -law of PW -2 Shri. Dhani Ram She did not come back to home, whereas at about 11 A.M Reshma returned to home. When PW -2 Dhani Ram, the father of prosecutrix/Victim inquired from Reshma, it was revealed that his daughter had gone to school with her and did not come back. Reshma told PW -2 Dhani Ram that prosecutrix/victim left the school before morning prayer. PW -2 Dhani Ram searched the prosecutrix, but she was not traced out. On 18 -9 -1994 PW -2 reported to the police vide Roznamcha Ex. PW -13/A about missing of victim/prosecutrix. It was revealed during the investigation that victim/prosecutrix had accompanied Balwant Chand (her class -fellow studying in the school) on the pretext of marriage. On search, victim/prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of Respondent/accused Balwant Chand. After investigation, accused was charged for the aforesaid offence.

(3.) WE have noticed that PW -2 Dhani Ram father of prosecutrix/victim, lodged a complaint EX. PW -2/A is a material witness along with PW -3 (Victim/prosecutrix), PW -9 Dr. Dayal Chand Chauhan, PW -11 Reshma, PW -14 Dr. Asha Negi and PW -16 Keshav Ram, SHO/IO in the present case, whereas, PW -5 Dineshwar Dutt, PW -6 Madan Lal, PW -7 Sukhvinder Singh and PW -8 Dinbandhu have turned hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case and other witnesses are formal witnesses.