STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. BALDEV CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, dated 22.7.2002, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 342 and 376 of the IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 27.2.2000, at about 4 p.m., at a place known as Lohani, the prosecutrix 'X ' (name not mentioned) met a Police Officer and made a statement which was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In the said statement, she had alleged that today i.e. on 27.2.2000, she had gone to the forest from her house to collect leaves. She alleged that she is a married woman and at about 11.30 a.m., when she was coming back and reached near Dhogri of the respondent, she demanded a glass of water from him. She took the glass of water and started proceeding and when she carried the load of the leaves, the respondent forcibly dragged her inside the Dhogri. She raised an alarm, but the respondent put his hand on her mouth and bolted the door of the Dhogri. He removed the string of her salwar forcibly, made her to lay on the ground and she raised an alarm, but none was present nearby. She further alleged that the respondent committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and offered her Rs.50/ -. She came back to her house and told her mother -in -law Tilku Devi, Member Bali Ram and Pradhan Krishan Chand. Her husband had gone away to attend a marriage. She waited for him and when she came she told him about the occurrence and accompanied by these persons she was coming to report the matter, when the police officer met her and she gave her statement. She was medically examined. On completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge from where the case was assigned to the learned trial Court. The accused was tried by the learned trial Court under the aforementioned Sections leading to his acquittal.

(3.) ON appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that there is no delay in lodging the report since the occurrence had taken place at about 11.30 a.m. and the statement Ext.PW -7/A had been made at 4.00 p.m. when the prosecutrix was proceeding towards the police station. In so far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, it is also clear that the prosecutrix was of the age of 19/21 years and as such the question that she was a minor or was below the age of 16 years also does not arise. The only question for determination is as to whether the evidence led proves beyond any reasonable doubt that such an occurrence had taken place.