STATE OF J & K Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave is sought by the State to assail the impugned judgment of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (Fast Track Court) dated 31.07.2013 in Sessions File No. 44 titled State v. Surinder Singh alias Bablu in terms whereof respondent-Surinder Singh alias Bablu (hereinafter referred to as accused) has been acquitted of charge under Sections 363/376 of RPC. The impugned judgment is sought to be assailed on the ground that the Trial Court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in proper perspective and the findings recorded are perverse. According to prosecution version, on 12.08.2004 Ghulam Ali father of prosecutrix lodged a written report at P/s Bagh-e-bahu alleging therein that the prosecutrix who was a minor aged about 14/15 years who had gone to the house of her aunt had been kidnapped by the respondent who was an auto-driver by profession. Case under FIR No. 52/2004 came to be registered at P/s Bagh-e-bahu in this regard. Prosecutrix was recovered on 20.08.2004 during investigation and restored to her father after being subjected to medical examination. The investigation culminated in filing of charge sheet before the Trial Court for offence under Section 363/376 of RPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution adduced evidence but PW-Ghulam Ali-father of prosecutrix expired before his appearance in the witness box.

(2.) In his examination under Section 342 of Cr.P.C. the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. However, he did not enter upon his defense and no witness was examined in defense. On consideration of evidence led by prosecution at the trial learned Trial Court found that the prosecutrix was not proved to be a minor and that it was a case of elopement of prosecutrix with the accused and not a case of kidnapping and rape as alleged by prosecution.

(3.) Heard and considered.