STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. BUDHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILING the judgment dated 24.11.2008, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 7/2004: 58/2005, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Budhi Singh @ Dharam Chand & others, whereby respondents -accused stand acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) IT is the case of prosecution that on 24.3.2003, prosecutrix (PW -2) alongwith her friend Leela Devi (PW -3), both students of 10th Class, were on their way to school. Near Khad Kalyana, accused forcibly made the prosecutrix sit in a vehicle and took her away. PW -3 informed her mother Smt. Pitambri Devi (not examined) about the incident. Also Sh. Devi Ram (PW -1), father of the prosecutrix was informed about the incident who reported the matter to the police. Statement of Leela Devi (PW -3) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ext. PW -3/A) was recorded. Investigation so conducted by the police party, headed by Inspector K.D. Sharma (PW -13), revealed that accused took the prosecutrix to his sister's house at Dharamshala. Later he forcibly solemnized his marriage with the prosecutrix in a temple. Thereafter in the night he subjected her to sexual intercourse against her wishes. This was in the guest house where they were staying. On 25.3.2003 when whereabouts of the prosecutrix were made known, police recovered and handed over her custody to her parents. Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr. Anjali Soni, who issued MLC (Ext. PX). Investigation further revealed that at the time of commission of crime, prosecutrix was below the age of discretion. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded, in which they took plea of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led by the accused.