Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pankaj Rana vs State Of Punjab on 12 August, 2013
CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012
Date of decision: 12.08.2013
Pankaj Rana ..Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BANGARH
Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sidharth Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. PPS Thethi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
*****
S.P. BANGARH, J. (ORAL)
First Information Report EX.PW-10/C was registered in Police Station Morinda on the basis of statement EX.PW-1/A made by Surinder Kaur W/o Charanjit Singh before Assistant Sub Inspector Bhagwan Singh PW-9 to the effect that she has two children namely Jaswinder Singh (Son) and prosecutrix (daughter) (name kept secret) aged about 18 years, 2 months and 11 days. Another girl aged about 17 years, 1 month and 10 days, daughter of her sister was residing with her for the last about 1½ months prior to the incident. The daughter of the sister of the complainant was studying in 10+2 in Khalsa Girls College, Morinda. On 15.05.2010, she (daughter of complainant,s sister) went to attend her college, but did not come back in the afternoon at about 3.15 p.m., which was her normal Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 2 routine. Daughter of her sister came back and she informed her that she had accompanied her friend Puneet Kaur to Kharar to sell old books. At about 5:15 p.m., when the complainant and her daughter-in-law Pooja, daughter (prosecutrix name kept secret) and daughter of her sister (name kept secret) were present in the house, Amandeep Singh along with another boy aged about 20-22 years came thereon a motorcycle bearing No. PB-49-A-2632 and gave the door bell. Complainant told her daughter and niece to go and look at the door. When they opened the door, Amandeep Singh and the other boy took away her daughter and niece. She raised alarm and also tried to chase them, but in vain.
Amandeep Singh was arrested on 20.05.2010 and his motorcycle was seized by the police vide recovery memo EX. PW-1-/A. On 20.05.2010, Bahadur Singh Sarpanch and others produced before ASI Bhagwan Singh PW-9, daughter and niece of the complainant and Amandeep Singh. Both the girls refused to get them medically examined. They were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate, where their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. However, on that date i.e. 20.05.2010, both the girls were medically examined. The clothes worn by niece and daughter were sent to chemical examiner Kharar. On 23.06.2010, Pankaj Rana, appellant, herein, was arrested vide memo EX. PW8/A. At the time of his arrest, search memo EX. PW8/B was also prepared. He was also medically examined on 24.06.2010.
After completion of the investigation, SHO of Police Station Morinda instituted police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before learned Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 3 Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appears that the appellant had committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 363, 366-A and 120-B IPC. On presentation of police report, copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.PC., were furnished to the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Session which was entrusted to the learned trial court (Additional Sessions Judge) (Fast Track Court) Ropar. After the receipt of sessions case, learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Ropar framed charge under Sections 363 read with Section 120-B IPC, under Section 366-A read with Section 120-B and under Section 376 read with Section 120-B of the IPC against the appellant, whereto, the latter pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.
Accomplice of the appellant namely Amandeep Singh was a juvenile. His case was segregated from the case of the appellant and police report against him was presented before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rupnagar.
At the trial, prosecution examined, as many as, 15 witnesses who testified as under:-
PW-1 Surinder Kaur testified that she has two children namely Jaswinder Singh and prosecutrix. She further testified that her niece (name kept secret) aged about 17 years had come to her house and was studying in Khalsa College. She also testified that on 15.05.2010, she dropped her niece at College and after the closing hours, when she went to get her, she was not found and despite her efforts, she could not locate her and thereafter, Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 4 she telephonically informed her parents. She testified that at about 3:15 p.m., she saw her niece along with another girl getting down from the bus at bus stand Morinda who informed her that she had gone to market in Kharar to sell some old books. She further testified at about 5:15 p.m., she along with her daughter-in-law Pooja and her daughter (prosecutrix) and niece were present in the house and she saw Amandeep Singh standing outside her house along with another person with motorcycle. She testified that both her daughter and niece (names kept secret) left the house, but she did not know, as to where and with whom they had gone. This witness was declared hostile to the respondent/prosecution, who was cross examined by learned Additional PP for the respondent.
PW-2 testified that her cousin (name kept secret) aged about 19 years was having affair with Amandeep Singh; her aunt knew about the said affair. She further testified on 15.05.2010, her cousin asked her to accompany her to the market with Amandeep Singh, for she wanted her company and at about 5.35 a.m., Amandeep Singh came to her house with whom they went to market on motorcycle. PW-2 further testified that she sat on the motorcycle in between Amandeep Singh and her cousin and she was taken to Nurpur Bedi. PW-2 told both of them to leave her there, as she wanted to inform her parents, but her cousin refused and threatened to leave her at a lonely place and she would be picked up by the police. She further testified that they went to Anandpur Sahib on motorcycle and from there to Nangal on a bus. From Nangal, they went to Ambala by train. At railway station Ambala, they met appellant (Pankaj Rana), herein, to whom Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 5 she identified in the court. She further testified that on 15.05.2010, they got a room booked in a hotel at Ambala. Her cousin and Amandeep Singh left her on some pretext in the company of appellant, herein.
PW-2 further testified that at about 11:30 p.m., appellant raped her. Her cousin and Amandeep Singh came back in the room after about half an hour. She also testified on 16.05.2010, they took her to Haridwar by train, where they stayed for two days in a dharamshahla and, thereafter, they went to Jammu and on 19.05.2010, they left Jammu to Ambala where appellant, herein, slipped away. She further testified that parents of Amandeep Singh took them to PS City Morinda. She was also medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. EX.PW2/A was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.This witness during cross-examination testified that she was seeing the appellant for the first time in the Court. She also testified that the appellant had not committed rape with her either at Ambala or at any other place.
PW-3 Rakesh Kumar testified that on 15.05.2010, niece of his wife had taken away his daughter (prosecutrix), but he could not tell the name of the person with whom they had left.
PW-4 Kehar Singh, Namberdar testified that he knows nothing about the case. He was declared hostile to the prosecution and cross examined by the learned Additional PP who confronted him with the portions of statement recorded by the police during investigation, but he refused to yield any ground and maintained his stand taken in examination- in-chief to the effect that he knows nothing about the case. Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 6
PW-5 Bahadur Singh, Sarpanch testified that on 20.05.2010, he had accompanied Kehar Singh to Police Station Morinda, where Amandeep Singh along with two girls was produced before the police.
PW-6 who was allegedly with prosecutrix of this case and was kidnapped by Amandeep Singh testified that she was neither kidnapped nor raped by the appellant, herein. She also testified that she does know Amandeep Singh.
PW-7 Head Constable Taljinder Singh testified that on 23.06.2010, while he was posted at P.P. City Morinda along with Bhagwant Singh and other police officials went to police station Shahbad, District Kurukshetra from where Pankaj Rana, appellant, herein, was arrested vide memo EX.PW-8/A who was searched before his arrest vide memo EX.PW8/A. PW-8 Samrjit Singh tendered into evidence his affidavit EX.PW9/A. PW-9 ASI Bhagwan Singh testified that on 17.05.2010, he had recorded the statement of Surinder Kaur EX.PW1/A, which bears her signatures at PW1/B and on the basis, thereof, FIR EX.PW10/C was registered. He also testified on the same day, he inspected the spot and prepared site plan EX.PW10/D and on 19.05.2010, he seized motor cycle bearing No. PB-49-A-2632 EX.P1 vide memo EX.PW10/A. He also testified that on 20.05.2010, Sarpanch Bahadur Singh and others produced before him both the prosecutrix and Amandeep Singh and both the girls refused to get themselves medically examined. He further testified that they Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 7 were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate, where their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. He also testified on 20.05.2010, both the prosecutrixs were medically examined and the clothes worn by them were sent to chemical examiner Kharar.
PW-10 Dr. Kulwinder Kaur testified that she medically examined prosecutrix daughter of Rakesh Kumar on 17.05.2010 and gave report EX.PX in this regard. During cross-examination, she stated that there was no possibility that the victim was raped.
PW-11 Arun Sharma ahlmad testified that Ms. Jaswinder Sheemar ACJM Ropar had recorded the statement of the prosecutrix EX.PW2/A. PW-12 Surinder Kaur Lecturer Punjabi Government Senior Secondary Sanghol brought the summoned record pertaining to the admission of prosecutrix D/o Rakesh Kumar in their School. She testified that as per record, prosecutrix (name kept secret) was born on 26.03.1993. She also relied upon the Identity Card EX.PW13/B issued by the school in favour of the prosecutrix.
PW-13 HC Harpal Singh tendered into evidence his affidavit EX.PW14/A. PW-14 Dr. Bhim Sain testified that on 24.06.2010, she examined Pankaj Rana (appellant) and gave his opinion EX.PW15/A. PW-15 Ms. Jaswinder Sheemar, Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Hoshiarpur testified that on 20.05.2010, while she was posted as ACJM at Rupnagar, request EX.PW16/A was moved by police for recording the statements of two victims and she recorded their Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 8 statements EX.PW16/B and EX.PW16/C respectively.
Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.
After closure of the prosecution evidence, appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he denied the allegations of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in this case. He was called upon to enter in defence, but he closed the same without examining any evidence in defence.
After hearing both the sides, as also, after perusal of the evidence and documents on the record, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 19.04.2012 convicted the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A IPC read with section 120-B IPC and under Section 376 IPC and vide impugned order of sentence also dated 19.04.2012, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of ` 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of ` 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days for commission of offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of ` 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 days for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
Sharma Poonam2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 9
Aggrieved against judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant who was accused before the learned trial court has come up in this appeal with a prayer for acceptance thereof, and for acquittal of the offences, wherefor, he was convicted and sentenced.
Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing of the appeal moved criminal miscellaneous application for placing on record the copy of the judgment of Principal Judicial Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board Ropar (Annexure P-14) whereby, accomplice of the appellant, herein, was acquitted for alleged abduction and rape of cousin of the prosecutrix of this case. That judgment (Annexure P-14) was allowed to be placed on record. It pertains to the FIR No. 78 dated 17.05.2010 under Sections 376, 363, 366-A and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Morinda. Present appeal also pertains to the FIR supra.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that complainant (PW-1) denied having filed any complaint before the police and she was declared hostile to the prosecution before the learned trial court. He also contended that PW-2 the prosecutrix of this case during her examination-in- chief supported the case of the prosecution, but during the cross examination, she categorically testified that she was seeing the appellant Pankaj Rana in the Court for the first time. He also contended that she also testified that she was neither raped nor abducted by appellant Pankaj Rana. He further contended that learned trial court wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant on the basis of testimony given by PW-2 in her examination-in-chief.
Sharma Poonam2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 10
Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the statement of PW-2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was wrongly relied upon by the learned trial court for basing conviction upon the appellant, knowing full well that such statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. could not be treated as substantive evidence which could only be used for the purpose of contradiction and corroboration. He also contended that medical evidence provided by the prosecution of PW-10 does not establish commission of rape upon the prosecutrix. So, he contended that even if the incident is said to have taken place, in that event, prosecutrix was a consenting party, as if she would not have been a consenting party, in that event, she would have raised hue and cry to attract her fellow passengers during her journey for her alleged emancipation from the alleged illegal custody of the appellant.
On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that the learned trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence that may be up- held and confirmed, as these do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
Evidence and documents placed on record of the learned trial court have been carefully examined with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and their contentions heard.
It may be mentioned here that PW-1 Surinder Kaur from whose house her daughter and her niece (prosecutrixs) were allegedly kidnapped by Amandeep Singh on motor cycle No. PB-49A-2632 has not supported the prosecution version, therefore, no benefit could be derived from her Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 11 testimony for basing conviction upon the appellant. In other words, the evidence of this witness (PW-1) could be used for convicting and sentencing the appellant, if she had testified in candid words that prosecutrix who is her niece was abducted from her house by the appellant or Amandeep Singh. Even as per the version of the prosecution, the appellant was not present at the time of alleged abduction of both the prosecutrixs of this case. It may be mentioned here that vide Annexure P-14, Amandeep Singh who allegedly abducted both the prosecutrixs on his motor cycle supra was acquitted by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Ropar. The Prosecution witnesses of that case (PW-1 and PW-3) appeared as PW-1 and PW-6 respectively in this case. They nowhere testified that prosecutrix was kidnapped and raped.
Even PW-2 could not withstand the test of cross-examination. She testified that appellant present in the court was not known to him to whom she was seeing for the first time in the court and prior thereto, he never met her. She also testified that the appellant had not committed rape with her. She also never mentioned name of the appellant to the police. She further testified that she never stated that the appellant present in the court ever committed rape upon her and police had not read over the statement to her. From this testimony, it is made out that the appellant did not commit rape upon PW-2 after her alleged adbduction. Even, if it is assumed that appellant committed sexual inter-course with PW-2 that was consensual, as if she had been raped, she would have raised hue and cry in the hotel and would have reported the matter to the police at Ambala itself. She did not Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 12 report the matter to the people with whom she travelled in the train upto Haridwar and then upto Jammu.
This silence on the part of the prosecurtix, whereon, she should have acted with alacrity is indeed intriguing that must lead to the inference that she had consensual sex with the appellant, if at all, testimony given by her during examination-in-chief is accepted on the point of alleged commission of rape upon her by the appellant.
Reliance can be placed upon Sagar Kumar v. State of Haryana:
2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 620: passed by this Court, wherein, the prosecutrix was 18 years of age at the time of occurrence and she was consenting party and it was held that offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 are not made out against the appellant.
Reliance can also be placed upon State of Punjab v. Suresh ; 2007(4) CCR 310; passed by this Court, wherein, the age of prosecutrix was more than 16 years at the time of alleged occurrence. There was nothing on the record to show that she was ever threatened with death, injury or dire consequences in case of her refusal. It was held that during journey, ample opportunities might have come, where it may have been possible for prosecutrix to raise hue and cry, if she was being detained forcibly. She never tried to narrate her plight to companion passengers or contact police officials, who might be available at bus stand or railway station during journey. It was held that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused and no case was made out to interfere in findings, recorded by the trial court.
Sharma Poonam2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 13
Reliance can be placed upon Bhagwant Singh v. State of Punjab; 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 719; passed by this Court, wherein, the prosecutrix was 17 years of age. There was allegation of kidnapping against the accused. There was no evidence that prosecutrix was forced to have intercourse with another person. Offence under Section 366-A IPC was not made out. It was held that there was allegation of kidnapping, but there was no evidence that the kidnapping was on threat of murder. Accused had no deadly weapon with him. Evidence showed that she had love affair with accused. It was held that the prosecutrix was consenting party.
In S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942; it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that taking or enticing a minor out of the keeping of a lawful guardian is an essential ingredient of the offence of kidnapping. However, when the girl (who though a minor had attained the age of discretion and is on the verge of attaining majority and is a senior college student) and from the house of the relative of the father where she is kept, herself telephones the accused to meet her at a certain place, and goes there to meet him and finding him waiting with his car gets into that car of her own accord, and the accused takes her to various places and there is no suggestion that this was done by force or blandishment or anything like that on the part of the accused, but it is clear from the evidence that the offer of marriage came from her side, the accused by complying with her wishes can by no stretch of imagination be said to have "taken" her out of the keeping of her lawful guardian.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Kamal Singh v. The State Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 14 of H.P., 1985(1) Crimes 151 considered the case where there was some intimacy between prosecutrix and the appellant in the said case and the prosecutrix was willing and active agent in her enticement and she accompanied the accused of her own accord, while her parents were sleeping. It was held that even though the prosecutrix was below 18 years would not be material. The accused, therein, was acquitted.
Although prosecutrix in this case was below the age of 18 years of this case, yet as per the prosecution case, she was not taken out the house by the appellant. The only allegation against the appellant is that he committed rape upon her in a hotel at Ambala. As already held, since the prosecutrix did not resist alleged rape, it must be held to be consensual sex, as she was capable of giving her consent because her age was more than 16 years. That apart, the prosecutrix (PW-2) did not support the prosecution version during cross examination. She testified that she has been seeing the appellant for the first time in the Court who neither committed rape upon her at Ambala nor at any other place. This deposition of PW-2 during cross examination must make the testimony given by her examination-in-chief doubtful. It was very difficult to wriggle out of this testimony given by PW- 2 in her cross-examination. One fails to understand as to how learned trial court, over looked this testimony of PW-2 in her cross-examination to the effect that she was neither raped at Ambala nor at any other place by the appellant.
It appears that the learned trial court relied on the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., for basing conviction upon the Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 15 appellant. Now the question arises as to whether the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. EX.P-16/C could be used for basing conviction on the appellant. The answer shall be no, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Brij Nath Sah v. State of Bihar2010 (5) JT 398 held that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is not substantive evidence and can be utilized only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in the Court. In other words, it can only be utilized as a previous statement and nothing more.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in R. Shaji v. State of Kerala 2013(2) Crl. CC 179; also held that statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence. It was held that such statement can be used for corroboration and contradiction. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur and another 1972 PLR 712; 1972 AIR (SC) 468; also held that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence which can be used to corroborate the statement of a witness, which can also be used to contradict witnesses.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Utpal Das & Anr. v. State of West Bengal 2010 Crl.LJ 2867 held that statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can never be used as substantive evidence of truth of facts, but may be used for contradictions and corroboration of a witness who made it. It was further held that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used to cross examine the maker of it and the result may be to show that the evidence of the witness is false. It was further held that it can be used to impeach the credibility of the prosecution witness. Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 16
In view of the law laid down in the judgment supra by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, no scope is left to come to the conclusion that the conviction can be based upon the accused as has been done in this case on the basis of sole statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., of the prosecutrix which, too, has not been supported by her as PW-2 during her cross examination that was conducted by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned trial court.
It may be mentioned here that the prosecutrix while appearing as PW-2 in her cross examination testified that the police had obtained her signatures upon the documents without disclosing the contents, thereof. She had given her statement dated 16.12.2010 (Ex PW16/C) in the Court under the pressure of the local police. She further testified that she never got recorded any report against the appellant present in the Court. She further testified that she does not know the contents of her statement if any recorded by the Magistrate in any court of law. She further testified that the name of Pankaj Rana (appellant) was told to her by the police. She further testified that she never went to Ambala or any other place along-with the appellant and was never physically harassed or raped by him in a hotel at Ambala.
PW-2 further testified that she never accompanied appellant to Haridwar and Jammu. She was re-examined by the learned APP for the respondent before the learned trial court, wherein, she maintained her stand supra. She voluntarily stated that the contents of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were not read over to her and, therefore, she cannot say Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 17 that if the contents mentioned in that statement were disclosed to her or not. She denied the suggestion of the learned APP for the respondent that she has been won over by the appellant.
In this view of the evidence, it must follow that the appellant could not be convicted for alleged offences. Even PW-1 and PW-6 smashed the case against accomplice of the appellant that resulted in his acquittal vide judgment Annexure A-14. PW-3 father of prosecutrix also did not support the case of the prosecution.
Indeed, the alleged rape was committed upon the prosecutrix in a hotel at Ambala when no one else was present. As already held, she did not report the incident to anyone. Even the medical evidence of PW-10 does not disclose commission of rape upon the prosecutrix. As per statement of this witness, there was no injury inside the vagina or on external private part. There was no mark of struggle. She testified that there was no mark of consensual sex. She also testified that it cannot be confirmed that the present appellant had raped the victim. Even she testified that on the basis of medico legal report and other medical evidence, it is not possible that the victim was raped.
So, the evidence of PW-2, as also, the medical evidence of PW-10 do not indicate commission of rape upon the victim (prosecutrix). Even the police did not collect evidence that both the appellant and prosecutrix stayed in a hotel at Ambala. Even there is no evidence of conspiracy against the appellant as his alleged accomplice has been acquitted by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rupnagar vide judgment Annexure A-14. Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA No. 1743-SB of 2012 18
Learned trial court, thus, fell in grave error in convicting and sentencing the appellant vide impugned judgment and order of sentence that must be set aside.
Resultantly, appeal succeeds and is, hereby, allowed; impugned judgment and order of sentence are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 120-B IPC by according him benefit of doubt. He be set at liberty in this case. Intimation be sent to the Jail where he has been detained.
(S.P. BANGARH) 12.08.2013 JUDGE Poonam (II) Referred to reporter.
B.O. Reader Sharma Poonam 2013.09.03 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh