Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh vs State Of Haryana on 9 September, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRA No.381-SB of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA No.381-SB of 2001
Date of Decision:-9.9.2013
Manjit Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Madhu Ranjan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Sagar Deswal, A.A.G. Haryana for the State
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The matrix of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant criminal appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that on 5.2.1997 at about 1.30 P.M., the prosecutrix (name withheld) aged 19 years, major daughter of complainant Ruldu Ram son of Bhana Ram (PW11) (for brevity "the complainant") had voluntarily left his house. As soon as, the complainant came to know, in the meantime, he reported the matter to the police that her daughter had voluntarily gone from his house for some unknown place. She while going had handed over a letter to his father Bhana Ram mentioning therein that she was going from the house of her own and no efforts should be made to search her. The villagers were stated to have disclosed to him that she had herself boarded a white Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 2 maruti car near the health centre of the village, in which, two young boys were already present there. No body had kidnapped and enticed her away. This information was recorded, vide DDR No.17 dated 5.2.1997 (Ex.DY) by the concerned police.
2. Sequelly, the case of the prosecution further proceeds that subsequently, the complainant suspected that appellant-convict Manjit Singh son of Gurbachan Singh (for short "the appellant"), who was a medical practitioner in the village and acquainted with his family, had enticed away his daughter. He (complainant) searched for them in his relations, but in vain. On 8.2.1997, he again made his statement (Ex.PC/1) to the police in this regard. On 15.2.1997, the prosecutrix was recovered and she narrated to the police that she was kidnapped and repeatedly raped by the appellant at different places, including the house of his father Gurbachan Singh and the house of his cousin Nawab Singh accused.
3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that on 5.2.1997, the appellant had kidnapped and repeatedly raped the prosecutrix. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of subsequent statement (Ex.PC/1) of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the appellant, his father Gurbachan Singh (acquitted accused) and Nawab Singh (proclaimed offender), by way of FIR No.125 dated 8.2.1997 (Ex.PC), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under section 366, 368 and 376 IPC by the police of Police Station Garhi, District Jind in the manner depicted here-in-above. Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 3
4. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the accused to face the trial for the indicated offences. Since accused Nawab Singh avoided the process of law, so, he was declared proclaimed offender, vide order dated 18.7.1998 and the case was committed for trial of remaining accused to the Court of Session by the Magistrate, by virtue of commitment order dated 26.3.1999.
5. Having completed all the codal formalities, the appellant and acquitted accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of pointed offences. As they did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution by the trial Judge.
6. Likewise, the prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellant and acquitted accused, examined PW9 prosecutrix, who deposed in the following terms:-
"I have studied upto matric. I cleared my matriculation examination from Government Girls School Dhamtansahib. I know Manjit Singh accused, now present in court. He was a private medical practitioner in Dhabiteksingh. I was suffering from typhoid. I used to take medicine from Manjit Singh. On 5.2.97, Manjit Singh forcibly administered medicine to me and thereafter he forcibly dragged me inside a car. He took me in the car from near his clinic. He first took me to village Padrathkhera which was near Bhakhra canal. He sent the car back from village Padrathkhera. He, then, took me to village Khanauri, on foot. The accused had been administering intoxicants to me and therefore, I cannot say as to where exactly he took me. Again said, he had taken me to a dilapidated house in Padrathkhera near Bhakhra canal. He took me to Dhuri on 8.2.1997 and raped me there. He did not rape me at any place before that. (At this stage, learned Public Prosecutor requests that the witness is suppressing the truth and, therefore, he be allowed to cross-examine her
-Heard. Allowed)."
7. During the course of her cross-examination by the PP, she Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 4 has further stated as under:-
"Police recorded my statement. I did not state before the police that on 3.2.1997, Manjit told me that he would take me to Amritsar etc. and show me "Jalianwala Bag" and that he also asked me to come near Health Centre on 5.2.1997. (Confronted with portion A to A in Ex.PJ wherein it is so recorded). It is correct that on 5.2.1997, at about 12.30 P.M. Manjit Singh brought a maruti car and he made me sit in that car by giving allurement. It is correct that Manjit Singh gave a threat that if I made noise, I would not be spared. It is correct that Manjit Singh took me to a deserted house near Bhakhra canal after giving a threat that if I made noise, he would push me in the Bhakhra canal. It is also correct that Manjit Singh, then, kissed me and then opened string of my salwar and raped me. It is also correct that when I tried to make noise, Manjit Singh gagged my mouth with my 'chunni'. It is also correct that thereafter Manjit Singh took me to Khanauri in a bus and from there he took me to Dhuri. It is also correct that at Dhuri we stayed in a Dharmshala, and he raped me there also. In the register of Dharamshala, Manjit Singh got it mentioned that I am his wife. It is also correct that Manjit Singh got wrongly mentioned in the Dharamshala register that he belonged to village Bhagwana- Pura. It is also correct that thereafter, Manjit Singh took me to his house in village Kolawali where we reached on 8.2.1997. The other accused Gurbachan Singh who is his father was present in the house. Gurbachan Singh told me that I should not worry, he would get me married to his son Manjit Singh. It is correct that I told him that I did not want to marry Manjit. It is also correct that I was kept at the house of the accused for two days. It is also correct that on 10.2.97, Gurbachan Singh told Manjit that he should take me to the house of his cousin, Nawab Singh in village Maulviwala. Manjit then took me to village Maulviwala. It is correct that Manjit Singh raped me at his house and also in village Maulviwala. Nawab Singh was present in village Maulviwala. It is also correct that Nawab Singh also said that he would get me married to Manjit Singh. It is also correct that I told him also that I would not marry Manjit. It is also correct that Nawab Singh said that we should live at his place and he would not let police come there. It is also correct that Gurbachan Singh had told Manjit that he would inform him if police came to Kolawali. It is also correct that after 3-4 days, Nawab Singh said that police had gained knowledge and, therefore, I should be taken to some other place. It is also correct that on 15.2.1997, Manjit Singh brought me to bus-stand Patran. It is also correct that we were waiting for the bus when my father and police came there. It is also correct that on seeing the police, Manjit Singh ran Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 5 away and police and my father brought me from there. I was medico legally examined. The doctor took into possession my under-wear also at the time of my medical examination. I had shown all the places where I was taken by Manjit and raped me to the police."
8. Similarly, PW11 complainant Ruldu Ram has tried to support the prosecution version. Instead of reproducing his entire statement and in order to avoid repetition, he has attempted to corroborate the version contained in his initial statement (Ex.PC/1), which formed the basis of FIR (Ex.PC). PW7 Baldev Singh, In charge, Head Master of Govt. Girls High School, on police request (Ex.PF), issued birth certificate (Ex.PF/1), indicating therein, that the date of birth of prosecutrix was 27.7.1978. PW8 Tota Ram, Manager of Dharamshala, has maintained that as per the entry dated 5.2.1997 (Ex.PG), the appellant along with his wife, stayed in the Dharamshala for a night on that day and left it on 6.2.1997. He handed over the bed sheet (Ex.P1) to the police, which was taken into possession, vide recovery memo (Ex.PH) attested by him.
9. Now adverting to the medical evidence, PW1 Dr.Shashi Singla, medico legally examined the prosecutrix on 15.2.1997, by virtue of MLR (Ex.PA) and she found that she was fully conscious & cooperative. Her both pupils were reacting to light. There was no mark of injury on any part of her body including face, breasts, thighs & on valva nor there was any blood or discharge. Her vagina admitted two fingers easily. Her hymen was ruptured old. PW2 Dr.B.R.Kayat, medico legally examined the appellant and opined, vide his report (Ex.PB) that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of doing sexual intercourse. Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 6
10. Coming to the evidence of police officials, PW3 ASI Amar Singh recorded the formal FIR (Ex.PC) on 8.2.1997 on receipt of statement (Ex.PC/1) of the complainant. PW4 HC Ram Singh and PW5 C.Ram Kishan are the formal witnesses, who have only tendered their respective affidavits (Ex.PD and Ex.PE) to complete the chain of link evidence. PW6 C.Mangat Ram delivered the special reports to the higher authorities. PW10 Inspector Badri Parshad while he was posted as SHO of Police Station Garhi, he formally arrested accused Nawab Singh from the Court at Samana on 17.7.1997. After completion of the investigation, he prepared the final police report (challan). He moved an application (Ex.PK) and obtained the opinion (Ex.PK/1) of the doctor to the effect that possibility of rape could not be ruled out. He also took into possession the birth certificate (Ex.PF/1). He recorded the statements of witnesses. PW12 C.Balwant Singh prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.PM) of the spot at the instance of prosecutrix with its correct marginal notes. PW13 SI Mohinder Singh recorded the statement (Ex.PC/1) of the complainant on 8.2.1997, made endorsement (Ex.PC/2) and sent it to the police station for registration of a case. Thereafter, the police party went to village Dhabi Tek Singh. He inspected and prepared the rough site plan (Ex.PO) of place of occurrence with its correct marginal notes. He recorded the statements of witnesses. On 12.3.1997, he arrested the appellant and got him medically examined from the doctor. In cross- examination, he (PW13) has categorically admitted that complainant Ruldu Ram made his statement at 2.30 p.m. on 5.2.1997, vide DDR No.17 (Ex.DY), where he got recorded the age of his daughter as 19 Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 7 years and the fact that she had gone of her own free will with some person and while leaving the house, she had given a letter to his (complainant's) father, in which, she has stated that she was going from the house with her free will and no efforts should be made to trace her. She herself boarded the maruti car and no body had kidnapped her.
11. The last to note is the testimony of another Investigating Officer PW14 Mohinder Singh, who partly investigating the case and maintained that on 15.2.1997, he along with the complainant was present at Bus-stand, Patran. On seeing the police party, the appellant escaped, whereas the prosecutrix was taken along them. She pointed out the place within the area of village Padrathkhera where she was allegedly raped by the appellant in the room. He prepared the rough site plan (Ex.PQ) (spot) with its correct marginal notes. She was got medico legally examined by the doctor and parcel of underwear (Ex.P2) and swab etc. was taken into possession, vide recovery memo (Ex.PR). In cross-examination, he has admitted that as per entry (Ex.PG) in the register of Dharamshala, the name of father of Manjit Singh is mentioned as Gurbachan Singh and stayed with his wife Manjit Kaur r/o Bhagwanpura, Tehsil Mallot, Distt. Muktsar. He has further testified his investigation. The prosecution has also tendered the reports (Ex.PN & Ex.PN/1) of Forensic Science Laboratory (in short "FSL") in the documentary evidence. This is the total oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
12. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellant and acquitted accused were recorded. The entire Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 8 incriminating material/evidence was put to enable them to explain any circumstance appearing against them therein, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. However, the appellant has denied the prosecution version & evidence in its entirety and pleaded false implication in the following manner:-
"Father of the prosecutrix is a dead-drunkard. The prosecutrix had become of advanced age. The father of the prosecutrix wanted her to marry with some old man to which Santosh made a complaint to me. I lodged protest to her father not to marry with an old man. The father of the prosecutrix threatened me that he would see me and subsequently, he got me falsely involved in this case."
13. The same line of defence was adopted by the acquitted accused. However, they did not prefer any defence evidence despite adequate opportunities.
14. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, accused Gurbachan Singh was acquitted of the charges framed against him. At the same time, the appellant was convicted & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short "RI") for a period of five years, to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of six months for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 366 IPC. He was also convicted & sentenced to undergo RI for a period of seven years, to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of one year u/s 376 IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, by means of impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.3.2001 and order of sentence dated 14.3.2001 by the trial Judge.
15. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the instant Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 9 appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter.
16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present appeal deserves to be accepted in this context.
17. At the very outset, it cannot possibly be disputed here is that the legal proposition with regard to burden of proof in criminal (rape) cases was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012 (3) RCR (Criminal) 66. Having considered the provisions of Section 376 IPC, Sections 53 & 54 of the Indian Evidence Act and a line of previous judgments, it was observed that once the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only on her solitary evidence and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons in this respect. At the same time, it was ruled as under (para 23):-
"However, even in a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no part of the duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and other witness have falsely implicated the accused. Prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. However great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. (Vide: Tukaram & Anr. v. The State of Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 10 Maharashtra,, AIR 1979 SC 185; and Uday v. State of Karnataka, 2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 99 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 13 : AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1639)."
18. As is apparent from the record that the appellant was convicted for having committed the offences punishable u/ss 366 and 376 IPC. Section 361 IPC defines kidnapping and postulates that whoever takes or entices any minor female under 18 years of age out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap her. Section 366 IPC further posits that whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, is liable to be punished therein.
19. A plain and meaningful reading of these sections would reveal that in order to attract these provisions, the prosecution was required to prove by producing cogent evidence on record that the appellant has actually taken or enticed away or induced the prosecutrix with intent that she may be compelled to marry her. Actual taking or enticing away a minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian are the essential ingredients of the offence of kidnaping. The word "takes" no doubt means physical taking not necessarily means by use of force or fraud. If the two words "taking or enticing" carry a very significant meaning, are read together, would suggest that if the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement, then the accused cannot be considered to have committed the Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 11 offence of kidnapping. In other words, in case the minor herself abandoned the guardianship, in the absence of any evidence of taking or enticing or blandishments and left her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily joined the appellant, perhaps it will not invite the application of these provisions.
20. Meaning thereby, if the prosecution fails to prove that immediately prior to the minor leaving the father's protection, no active part was played by the accused, he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the minor to do so, then, it would not be legitimate to infer that he is guilty of taking the minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian merely because after she had voluntarily left her guardian's house, joined and the accused helped her in her design not to return to her guardian's house by taking her along with him from place to place to facilitate and fulfill the intention of the girl. It falls short of an inducement to the minor to slip out/abandon her father's protection will not tantamount to "taking" as envisaged u/s 361 IPC. Reliance in this regard can be placed to a celebrated judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case S.Varadarajan v. State of Madras 1965 AIR (SC) 942, which was subsequently followed in various recent judgments.
21. Such thus being the legal position and evidence on record, now the core controversy, which requires an immediate attention of this Court and arises for determination in this appeal is, as to whether the appellant had actually kidnapped or enticed away and raped the prosecutrix or not ?
Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 12
22. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative, as the prosecution has miserably failed in this relevant direction.
23. At the very outset, adverting to the age of prosecutrix, the complainant himself has mentioned her age as 19 years in his initial version (Ex.DY). As per birth certificate (Ex.PF/1), her date of birth was 27.7.1978 at the relevant time of occurrence. PW1 Dr.Shashi Singla has also depicted her age as 18½ years in her statement as well as in MLR (Ex.PA). That means, it stands proved on record that the prosecutrix was major, more than 19 years of age and she was capable of understanding, at the relevant time, of commission of pointed offences. She herself had voluntarily left her parental house and handed over a letter to her grand father that since she was leaving the house of her own free will, so, no efforts should be made to trace her. The complainant in his initial version (Ex.DY) has so described and maintained that she herself left his house on 5.2.1997 for some unknown destination. Moreover, it has come in the evidence that she herself boarded the maruti car near the health centre of the village. PW13 SI Mohinder Singh has admitted the initial version contained in the DDR (Ex.DY). The fact of initial version is not even mentioned in the FIR (Ex.PC) by the police, for the reasons best known to it. That means, the prosecution has concealed the origin of the occurrence, which casts a serious doubt on its version.
24. Not only that, the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the appellant from her village to village Padrathkhera near Bhakhra canal, from where, they went to village Khanauri on foot. Then, they went from Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 13 village Khanauri to Dhuri on 8.2.1997 by bus. Although she tried to improve her version and stated that the appellant was administering intoxicants to her, but she was duly confronted with her earlier statement. Even in cross-examination by PP, she (PW9) has deposed that she did not say before the police that on 3.2.1997, the appellant told her that he would take her to Amritsar etc. to show Jalianwala Bag, but she was confronted with her statement (Ex.PJ). She remained with the appellant in Dharamshala at Dhuri. On 8.2.1997, he took her to his house, where his father told that he would get her married to the appellant. Then, she went to the house of his cousin Nawab Singh in village Maulviwala. She remained with the appellant at different pointed places from 5.2.1997 to 15.2.1997. She did not report the matter either to any person on the way, any passenger in the bus, or Chowkidar of Dharamshala or any other person despite repeated opportunities to do so.
25. The solitary vague circumstance of inducement pressed into service by the prosecutrix is that she did not narrate the incident to any person as the appellant used to administer the drugs and had threatened her with dire consequences. It is totally falsified by the medical evidence and FSL reports (Ex.PN & Ex.PN/1). This appears to be highly improbable under the indicated set of circumstances. As mentioned here- in-above, she made considerable improvements in her statement while appearing in the Court after due deliberations and consultations and she was duly confronted with her earlier statement (Ex.PJ) in this relevant connection.
26. Above-all, it was expected of her natural conduct to disclose Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 14 and in case of forcible kidnapping/rape, she ought to have reported the matter to the passers by, passengers in bus or any person or at least to put up a struggle and, in any case, raise an alarm to protect herself or to narrate her tale of woe to any person going at different villages and Dhuri town. No such steps were taken by her, which duly proved that she herself abandoned her parental house and was a willing & consenting party to go with the appellant of her own. It emerges from the evidence on record that she herself accompanied the appellant as she wanted to marry with him. It was so promised by the father of the appellant.
27. This is not the end of the matter. The story of prosecution is highly improbable. It is difficult to believe that if the appellant wanted simply to kidnap and to commit sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, then, he would take her to the house of his father (acquitted accused). At least, he would not have dared to take her to his house or his father would have allowed him to kidnap or to have forcible sexual intercourse with her in his house. In fact, the prosecutrix appears to have agreed to marry with the appellant of her own will and she was a willing & consenting party. In that eventuality, there was no taking out of guardianship of her parents. Thus, no implicit reliance can possibly be placed on her delayed, contradictory and interested evidence.
28. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. Undisputedly, the prosecutrix was more than 19 years of age at the time of occurrence. She accompanied the appellant on various indicated places and did not make any complaint against him. She did not raise any resistance at the time of commission of Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 15 sexual intercourse with her by him. She did not avail the opportunity of running from his company despite adequate opportunities in the manner described here-in-above. Moreover, if the appellant had committed forcible rape, then, she would have suffered injuries on her body. No explanation whatsoever, muchless cogent, is forthcoming on the record even to suggest remotely that she offered any kind of resistance. It is highly improbable to believe that a grown up lady of more than 19 years of age would submit her to a forcible intercourse without struggle. Had she struggled, there would have been some scratches on the face, the hands and the arms of the appellant as well as on her own body. The complete absence of any injury or even scratch on the persons of the appellant and the prosecutrix, in a very clear term, would suggest that the intercourse was not forcible, rather she consented to it, particularly when it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant was having any sort of weapon to scare her. Hence, the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narender Kumar and S.Varadarajan's cases (supra) "mutatis mutandis" is attracted to the facts of this case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. In this manner, I cannot help observing that it was not a forcible intercourse, rather the prosecutrix herself consented to it in this relevant connection.
29. Therefore, if the fact of improbable version, insufficient, contradictory evidence, concealment of origin of incident by the prosecution, above-all the pointed consent of the prosecutrix and totality of special circumstances, oozing out from the record as discussed here-in- above, are put together, then, to my mind, the conclusion is inescapable Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.381-SB of 2001 16 and irresistible that the prosecutrix, who was major, had herself accompanied the appellant, she was a consenting party to the intercourse and the evidence brought on record by the prosecution falls short as is required to prove the charges of kidnapping and rape as contemplated u/ss 375 & 376 IPC, which entails the benefit of doubt and acquittal to the appellant as well.
30. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
31. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant appeal is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence are set aside. Having extended the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him as well.
Needless to mention that the necessary compliance and procedural consequences would naturally follow.
Sd/-
9.9.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No
Arvind Kumar Sharma
2013.09.13 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh