Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

studying together at Government College Sawara, District Shimla, H.P. Allegedly, on 13.6.2013, accused called the prosecutrix and prosecutrix went to Rohru to meet accused, where he instigated/pressurized her to solemnize marriage with her and for this purpose, he took her to Shimla. Subsequently, accused took the prosecutrix to the room of his friend namely Atul (PW25).

She alleged that they had started from Rohru on 13.6.2013, during evening time and reached cemetery, Shimla on 14.6.2013, at about 5:00 AM. Though prosecutrix made an attempt to make accused understand, but he under the pretext of solemnization of marriage not only abducted her, but sexually assaulted her against her wishes. During this period, accused allegedly developed physical relations with the complainant-prosecutrix. In the aforesaid background, complainant-prosecutrix by way of complaint Ext.PW2/A prayed that legal action be taken against the accused and she also intended to get herself medically examined. It may be noticed that aforesaid complaint was filed at police post Sanjauli. PW23 LHC Sarita forwarded the same alongwith rukka to HAG Rajinder (PW9) for registration of case. Endorsement with regard to registration of zero FIR is Ext.PW24/A.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as gone through the records of the case.

10. In her examination-in-Chief, prosecutrix (PW2) deposed that she was called by the accused on 12.6.2013, and thereafter, she met the accused at Rohru market on 13.6.2013, at 11:30 am, whereafter at 5:00 pm accused called her and persisted her to perform marriage. Prosecutrix deposed that accused threatened her that in case she does not solemnize marriage with him, he will end up his life. As per prosecutrix, accused brought her to Shimla in a vehicle of person namely Atul (PW25). They reached Shimla on 14.6.2013, at about 5:00 am. At this stage, it may be noticed that if the line of defence taken by the accused is considered/analyzed, there appears to be no dispute with regard to the factum of prosecutrix having accompanied accused from Rohru to Shimla. As per prosecutrix, she was taken to the room of Atul, which was situated in Cemetery at Shimla. Allegedly, Atul (PW25) left the room in the morning, whereafter accused committed sexual intercourse .

- 14 -

She stated that accused called vehicle of Atul (PW25) and thereafter, they left Rohru in the said vehicle of the Atul (PW25) being driven by Atul (PW25).

This version put forth by the prosecutrix does not appear to be correct, .

especially, in view of the statement of PW25 Atul, who deposed that on 13.6.2013, at about 5 pm, he received telephonic call from the prosecutrix and then, he met her at Rohru. He specifically stated that one boy (accused) was accompanying the prosecutrix. He also stated that he was in his Bolero vehicle bearing No. HP 10-A 2024. He stated that accused and complainant asked him to drop them to Shimla and then he took them to Shimla and dropped them at his quarter at Cemetery road. Most importantly, it has come in the statement of PW25 that he dropped prosecutrix and accused on the request of the prosecutrix. This witness categorically denied suggestion put to him in his cross-examination that he knows the accused as he has studied with him in DAV School. He also stated that prosecutrix was my god sister. He also stated that for the first time, he saw the accused on the said date i.e. 13.6.2013. Having carefully perused the statement of prosecutrix juxtaposing the statement of Atul PW25, who remained alongwith the prosecutrix and accused during their journey from Rohru to Shimla, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that statement of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence, rather story put forth by her appears to be untrustworthy.

she joined their company and they all went to the room of Atul (PW25) near Cemetery at Shimla. To the contrary Atul (PW25) stated that when they reached at Cemetery Shimla, prosecutrix talked with her friend Minakshi on mobile. PW25 further stated that Minakshi accompanied her to his room and remained there up to leaving of his room by the prosecutrix, accused and Minakshi (PW8). As per version put forth by Atul (PW25), he remained in his room till the time prosecutrix, accused and Minakshi left for the house of Minakshi (PW8) at Indernagar, whereas as per Prosecutrix, Atul (PW25) after leaving them in his room went away and accused sexually assaulted her on two occasions against her wishes. Factum with regard to the presence of PW2 and PW25 Atul in the room of PW25 Atul, wherein prosecutrix was allegedly taken by the accused at the first instance stands duly corroborated with the versions put forth by PW8 and PW25. PW8 and PW25 both in their depositions made before the Court below categorically stated that they all went to the room of Atul (PW25) near Cemetery at Shimla with the prosecutrix, which version of them totally belies the version put forth by the prosecutrix that she was alone with the accused in the room with Atul on the date of alleged incident. PW25 Atul categorically deposed that he remained in his room till the time prosecutrix, accused and Minakshi left the room, meaning thereby story putforth by the prosecutrix that accused sexually assaulted her in the room of PW25 Atul is highly unbelievable, rather appears to be