STATE OF J&K Vs. ALOK SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave is sought by the State for filing appeal against the judgment formulated by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (Fast Track Court) in case titled State v. Alok Sharma & ors. by virtue whereof respondent (hereinafter referred to as "accused") has been acquitted of charge under Section 376/420 of RPC. Allegedly after engagement of prosecutrix with accused Alok Sharma 2003, prosecutrix had been frequently visiting the house of accused. On 10.02.2003 she visited the house of aunt of accused at her instance where she found the (sic) used all alone. Allegedly accused forcibly ravished her. She narrated the incia (sic) to the family members of accused who advised her to keep quiet as her marriage with accused was being solemnized shortly. The investigation further revealed that the prosecutrix accompanied the accused to Patnitop under false promise of marriage where both stayed together in a Hotel from 01.02.2006 to 03.02.2006. During this period accused allegedly committed rape with her deceitfully. The investigation culminated in filing of charge sheet against accused Alok Sharma and his family comprising of six members. However, the Trial Court discharged the co-accused while charges under Section 376/420 of RPC were framed against the accused Alok Sharma who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined seven witnesses at the trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances emanating from prosecution witnesses. He, while admitting that prosecutrix was known to him and had been visiting his house, denied that engagement had taken place and their marriage was fixed. Denying the allegations of rape, accused pleaded that the prosecutrix wanted to blackmail him as the marriage proposal had not materialized. The accused examined three witnesses in defense.

(2.) Heard. On perusal of impugned judgment it comes to fore that the prosecutrix was a grown up girl having attained age of discretion relevant to offences alleged against the accused. She used to visit the Dance Institute of accused and became friendly with the accused who proposed marriage to her. A Roka ceremony was decided to be held with the consent of parents of both. Prosecutrix alleged that she was called to the house of aunt of accused where accused was all alone who committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She claimed to have complained to the mother and aunt of accused but they advised her to keep quiet. Later accused expressed remorse and stated that he was in love with her. He dropped her at her house in the evening. The testimony of prosecutrix further reveals that she did not inform her parents about this episode. Contrarily parents of prosecutrix claimed that the prosecutrix had complained to them about rape at the hands of accused. In the wake of denial of prosecutrix it is difficult to believe her parents on this aspect of the case. From evidence brought on record by prosecution, it further appears that the prosecutrix was born out of a live-in-relationship between her mother Seema Bakshi and Daya Ram, the latter having admitted that prosecutrix was in relationship with the accused for a period of five years but he had refused the proposal of accused to marry his daughter. He went to the extent of saying that he had advised the prosecutrix to refrain from having any contact with the accused but she did not heed his advice. It is manifestly clear that the prosecutrix was in relationship with the accused for a petty long time and even some ceremonies relating to engagement of prosecutrix with accused were observed. However, marriage could not be solemnized. The accused may have turned around on learning that the birth of prosecutrix had taken place as a result of live-in-relationship between Seema Bakshi and Daya Ram while husband of Seema Bakshi was living. Evidence further establishes that the prosecutrix not only continued to visit the accused but also accompanied him to Patnitop and Delhi etc. That goes to show that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and she did not desist from continuing to have relationship with accused despite the fact that the accused had sexually exploited her. No evidence has been brought on record by prosecution to establish that the accused had made the prosecutrix to submit to his will and surrender her person for gratifying his lust under a false promise of marriage. On consideration of testimony of prosecutrix in its totality learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the prosecutrix was a consenting party in having sexual liaison with the accused and that her act of submission to the lust of accused was voluntary. Since the circumstances brought out in the evidence of prosecution clearly negate cheating and deception on the part of accused in obtaining consent of prosecutrix, we are of the considered opinion that the conclusions drawn by learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of evidence are perfectly justified. We find no substantial and compelling reasons to differ with the findings recorded by learned Sessions Judge. SLAA is, accordingly, declined. Resultantly the appeal fails and is dismissed.