SAKSHI GANDOTRA Vs. IRSHAN BHAT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Slaa No.48/2013.

(2.) The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 22.4.2011, the prosecutrix, who was student of B.A Part-I in BTC College at Baniketh, Chamba, waiting for bus at Bus Stand, Baniketh, the respondent No. 1, who was student of B.A. Part II in the same college was coming to Jammu by his car, along with respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Since, respondent No. 1 was known to the prosecutrix, therefore, she requested him to give lift to Jammu. The prosecutrix thereafter boarded the car and on reaching Jammu, she told respondent No. 1 to drop her at Shalamar, Jammu. However, instead of dropping at Shalamar, respondent No. 1 took her to Roop Nagar at the residence of respondent No. 4, forcibly kept her in room, snatched her documents including mark sheets of 10th Class and forced her to sign some document and told her that she has been married to respondent No. 1 and thereafter respondent No. 1 repeatedly ravished her. After 4/5 days, accused had taken her back to Chamba, threatened and forced her to make statement in favour of respondent No. 1. Accordingly, on 28.04.2011, the prosecutrix was taken to the office of Tehsildar, Chamba for making statement in favour of the respondent No. 1 before the Tehsildar, Chamba. After recording statement, she was handed over to her parents. The parents of the prosecutrix had brought her back to Jammu and on 5.5.2011 the prosecutrix filed a complaint before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, which was forwarded to SHO, Police Station, Janipur for investigation in terms of section 156 of Cr. P.C. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, First Information Report was lodged for offences under section 363/366-A/376/343/109, RPC against the respondents and investigation commenced. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was presented in the Court against the respondents for the offences as aforesaid. The trial court vide impugned judgment has acquitted the respondents of the aforesaid offences.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that date of birth certificate was issued by the Municipal Committee. The date of birth of the prosecutrix is 27.05.1993. Therefore, she was below 18 years of age on the date of incident i.e. 22.04.2011. It is further submitted that from the statement of prosecutrix, commission of offence as alleged against the respondents is fully established in corroboration as required. Learned counsel also invited our attention to the statement of Dr. Anil Mehta, Gynaecologist and has submitted that medical opinion also supported the prosecution case. It is also submitted that prosecution witnesses, namely, Narinder Gandotra and Rakesh Kumar have supported the prosecution case and non examination of the Investigating Officer is not necessary in fact situation of the case. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Karnel Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 AIR(SC) 2472; State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors., 1996 AIR(SC) 1393; CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar, SLP (Civil) No. 20794 of 2008 (Reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2845), and Bhadur Singh v. State of J&K,2005 Supreme 8321 (J&K). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment passed by the trial court.