STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Himachal Pradesh aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.07.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan in Session Trial No. 28FTC/7 of 2010, is in appeal before this Court. It is seen that learned trial Judge has acquitted the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) of the charge under Sections 363, 376, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The allegations against the accused in a nut-shell are that on 2.6.2010 and 13.7.2010, in the morning hours, he kidnapped the prosecutrix, a minor from the lawful guardianship of her parents and she was taken to hotel 50 miles stone near Deonghat, where she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse in Room No. 102 and thereby he has committed an offence punishable under Section 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. As per further allegations against the accused, on 2.6.2010, the prosecutrix was wrongfully detained in Room No. 102 of hotel 50 miles stone after 12.00 noon for about 2-3 hours and also threatened to do away with her life by throwing 'Tezab' if she disclosed the factum of her kidnapping by him and subjecting her to sexual intercourse in the room of hotel to anyone and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 342 read with Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned on the grounds inter-alia that despite of the direction evidence as has come on record by way of own testimony of the prosecutrix and her father PW-16 as well as by way of testimony of PW-6 Jagdeep Singh, the owner of hotel 50 miles stone near Panch Parmeshwar Temple, Solan, the same has not been appreciated in its right perspective and the trial Court has proceeded to record findings of acquittal mechanically and without application of mind. The testimony of PW-16 that while going to his residence in police line Solan from market, he got attracted to the place of occurrence on hearing cries of people gathered there and school girls present and noticed that the accused had caught hold hand of his daughter the prosecutrix and that on seeing him the accused had fled away from the spot is also not appreciated in its right perspective and to the contrary, the accused has been acquitted of the charge on presumptions and assumptions.