STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR

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 Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., dated 1.5.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 3.6.1996, at 6.45 p.m., a report was lodged by the prosecutrix 'X ' (name not mentioned) that she is a resident of Village Kutheran and she had taken a room on rent at Kosrian from one person and was living alone in the said room. Her mother had asked her today to reach at District Hospital since she was to visit the hospital and she waited for her mother till 12.00 noon outside the hospital, but her mother did not come. When she was coming back to her quarter, respondents met her on the way and respondent Deepak asked her to accompany him and that he would give her his photograph. She refused, but Deepak Kumar, respondent, forcibly dragged her from her arm and took her inside the room of his friend Raj Kumar. She raised an alarm and Raj Kumar put his hands on her mouth and gagged her mouth. Deepak Kumar forcibly committed rape with her. She also raised an alarm. Thereafter, she came back to her quarter, informed her landlady Smt.Meena Suman, who asked her to report the matter to the police and the report was lodged with the police. On this report a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who committed the case to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court tried the respondents

(3.) ON appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the prosecution had examined 10 witnesses to substantiate its case. The most material witness is the prosecutrix herself, who has been examined as PW -5. She reiterated the allegations made by her in the report lodged with the police that she was coming back at 12.00 noon and both the respondents met her on way and she was dragged inside the house of Raj Kumar. Her mouth was gagged by the accused and she was raped by Deepak Kumar, respondent. She stated that when she tried to raise an alarm, the respondent Raj Kumar gagged her mouth and Deepak Kumar, respondent committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly. She came back to her quarter and kept sitting there for about 2 -1/2 hours as she was in bad condition and trauma. Then she revealed the facts to her landlady Meena Suman, who gave a telephonic call to her husband in the shop and told him the facts. Then the landlady asked her to go to the shop of her husband and the prosecution went there, told him the facts and he asked the prosecutrix to go to the police and lodge the report and she lodged the report with the police Ext.PC. The said landlady or her husband, to whom the facts were told by the prosecution, did not accompany her to the police station to lodge the report, though the facts disclosed by her made out a serious offence.