STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge Chamba in Sessions trial No. 40 of 2010 titled State of H.P. vs. Tilak Raj.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on dated 1.1.2010 at Karian within the jurisdiction of Police Station Chamba during night time accused committed rape upon prosecutrix without her consent and on the aforesaid date time and place accused threatened the prosecutrix to kill her. It is alleged by prosecution that accused also physically assaulted the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?. Yes. prosecutrix and also slapped her and also twisted her arms. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused asked the prosecutrix to attend the office and accused also told the prosecutrix that in the meantime accused would return from Mehla after obtaining money and thereafter he would take the prosecutrix along with him to his home. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused did not take the prosecutrix along with him despite assurance. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter prosecutrix approached police officials and on dated 5.1.2010 accused in the presence of Dy.S.P. and one Yoginder Mohan PW3 agreed to marry the prosecutrix. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 6.1.2010 when family members of prosecutrix came to Chamba for performing marriage then accused refused to solemnize the marriage with prosecutrix. It is alleged by prosecution that accused also agreed in writing vide Ext.PW2/B that he would marry the prosecutrix. It is alleged that FIR Ext.PW10/A was recorded in police station Chamba. It is alleged by prosecution that medical examination of prosecutrix was conducted and MLC Ext.PW2/D was obtained. It is alleged by prosecution that medical officer took into possession clothes of prosecutrix, vaginal swab and pubic hair during the course of examination. It is alleged by prosecution that as per opinion of medical officer prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse. It is alleged by prosecution that ASI Kuldeep Singh prepared site plan at the instance of prosecutrix. It is also alleged by prosecution that prosecutrix also handed over one letter Ext.P2 which was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW2/C. It is alleged by prosecution that accused was also medically examined vide MLC Ext.PA. It is alleged by prosecution that accused also produced dairy Ext.P1 which was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW1/A and specimen signatures and hand writing of accused Ext.PB-1 to Ext.PB-23 also obtained before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is alleged by prosecution that prosecutrix had also handed over one letter Ext.PW2/A vide memo Ext.PW1/B. It is alleged by prosecution that during the course of investigation birth certificate of prosecutrix Ext.PB-24 also took into possession and as per birth certificate of prosecutrix the date of birth of prosecutrix was 23.5.1970. It is alleged by prosecution that C. Ratto Devi PW7 had deposited the articles received from Dr. Anuradha Mahajan PW5 after conducting the MLC of prosecutrix i.e. clothes, vaginal swab and pubic hair and deposited the same with MHC PW10. It is alleged by prosecution that articles received from doctor were sent by MHC PW10 to FSL Junga vide RC No. 2/2010 through PW6 Guman Singh. It is alleged by prosecution that as per opinion of RFSL Dharamshala Ext.PD writings Mark S-1 to S-24 and A-1 to A-22 have been opined to have been written by one and same person.

(3.) Accused was charged by learned Sessions Judge Chamba on dated 8.11.2010 under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Accused person did not plead guilty and claimed trial.