STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. AJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 29.05.2002 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 1999, whereby he acquitted the accused of having raped the prosecutrix.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix on 12.6.1998 filed a complaint (Ext.PW -3/A) with the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur complaining that on 1.6.1998 when she was sleeping with her cattle in the verandah of the house, the accused entered the house and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Her husband Deep Ram was not at home. He came back in the evening of 2.6.1998, when she told him the entire story. The husband thereafter called the villagers and in front of them the accused admitted that he had raped the prosecutrix. The villagers asked him to apologise but he refused to do so and stated that he had done what he had to do and that they can do whatever they wanted to do. According to the prosecutrix, she belongs to a very poor family and her husband is a labourer.

(3.) THE prosecutrix appeared in the witness box as PW -3. She is a married lady, aged about 35 years. She by and large repeated what had been stated in the complaint. But there are material changes, improvements and contradictions in her statement in Court when compared with the averments made in complaint (Ext.PW -3/A). Whereas in the complaint, it was stated that the accused had refused to apologise and had infact stated that he had done what he had to do and they (villagers) can do whatever they wanted to do, in Court, the complainant stated that the accused had begged pardon and offered to pay Rs. 300/ - as compensation. He however did not pay Rs. 300/ - and falsely stated that this amount had already been paid. Thereafter, she visited the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat on the next day and reported the matter to him in writing which is Ext.PW -3/A. This also does not appear to be correct since the complaint is not addressed to the Pradhan but is addressed to the District Magistrate. No. doubt, it has been forwarded through the Pradhan but it was not addressed to him.