SHUBH KAUSHAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dated 3.10.2019, whereby bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of his arrest in case FIR No. 200/2019 dated 7.9.2019 under Sections 366 , 376 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, registered with Police Station Nurpur, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, HP, ASI Pawan Kumar, I/C PP Gangath, P.S Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., has come present along with records. Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions of Investigating Officer, fairly stated that pursuant to order dated 3.10.2019, bail petitioner has joined the investigation and at this stage, nothing is required to be recovered from him. He further stated that investigation is almost complete, save and except CDR and medical report from RFSL Dharamshala, which are still awaited.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record this Court finds that FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged at the behest of victim-prosecutrix (name withheld), who alleged that the bail petitioner, to whom, she knew for one and half years, sexually assaulted her against her wishes on the pretext of marriage. Statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded on 9.9.2019 under Section 164 Cr.PC., before the Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, clearly reveals that victim-prosecutrix, who is major, of her own volition without there being external pressure joined the company of the bail petitioner and thereafter, made an attempt to solemnize court marriage, but since her Adhaar Card was not available, proposal for marriage could not be materialized. Aforesaid statement of victim-prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC., nowhere suggests that bail petitioner compelled victim-prosecutrix to join his company, rather victim-prosecutrix of her own volition went with the bail petitioner, whereafter they allegedly stayed at some hotel at a place called Ladua, Gurgaon. Record further reveals that place of alleged incident was though stated to be in the State of Haryana, but during investigation, it transpired that alleged incident took place in the State of Punjab i.e. Lalru, District Mohali, Punjab. As per own statement of victim-prosecutrix, she was persuaded by the bail petitioner to leave her house on 27.8.2019, but admittedly FIR came to be lodged on 7.9.2019 and there is no explanation available on record qua the delay in lodging FIR. Allegedly on 31.8.2019, bail petitioner sent the victim- prosecutrix to her maternal uncle's house at Fetahpur, where she narrated the entire incident to her maternal uncle and other family members, but it is not understood that why victim-prosecutrix chose not to lodge report for more than seven days. Even after lodging of report on 7.9.2019, victim- prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC completely denied the sexual assault, if any, committed upon her by the bail petitioner. After one month of recording of earlier statement under Section 164 Cr.PC, victim-prosecutrix again got her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, taking complete u-turn.