STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 31.5.2008 of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, H.P., rendered in Sessions Trial Nos. 39 of 2003 & 42 of 2004, whereby the respondent -accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC, has been acquitted of the charges framed against him.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that Sh. Durga Dass father of the prosecutrix reported the matter in Police Station, Sundernagar to the effect that he was posted in B.S.L. Security and Vigilance Department. He was residing with his family members in Quarter No. 512 -157, BBMB Colony, Sundernagar. On 30.6.2003, the prosecutrix, his daughter aged 17 years alongwith her cousin Kajal, daughter of Braham Dass, resident of Malori had left his quarter at about 1:30 PM. He inquired from his brother at about 7:00 PM. His 'Bhabhi' Smt. Saroj Arya told him that at 4:00 PM his daughter and niece Kajal were seen going towards the side of Mandi Bazar. On the road at Pul Gharat the accused and Paramvir resident of Pandoh who were going on the motor cycle met them and stopped the motor cycle and talked with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix told Kumari Kajal that she should go to the Bazar and she will go to her house. His daughter has not reached at his house on 30.6.2003. On 1.7.2003, he had gone to Pandoh to enquire from the friend of the prosecutrix about the whereabouts of the prosecutrix. He came to know that the prosecutrix was seen on 30.6.2003 and 1.7.2003 in the company of the accused in the quarter of Papu. On 30.6.2003 both have stayed in the quarter of Papu. On 1.7.2003, Babita who is studying in 10+1 class at Pandoh had seen the accused and the prosecutrix roaming near the School. On 2.7.2003 when he was at the bus stand Sundernagar, in the search of the prosecutrix, the accused met him at bus stand Sundernagar. He enquired from the accused regarding the prosecutrix and the accused refused to divulge anything. He and his brother Gopi Chand took the accused to the police Station, Sundernagar. The prosecutrix was recovered and custody was handed over to him on superdari. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. Initially, the FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC. Thereafter, the same was converted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC.

(3.) MR . Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 31.5.2008.