Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. Father of the prosecutrix entered the witness box as PW2 and deposed that on 25.3.2009, his wife Babli told him that she had seen accused and prosecutrix in a compromising position and when she made enquiries from her daughter, she told her that accused had promised her to marry and had committed sexual intercourse with her. He further deposed that prosecutrix told him that accused had committed sexual intercourse with her four times on the pretext of marriage. He also deposed that thereafter he took his daughter to the house of accused on 31.3.2009 and enquired from the accused whether he had promised to marry her and accused replied that he could not marry his daughter. He further deposed that he tried to contact accused for about 3-4 days but accused could not be contacted and thereafter he took his daughter and wife to the Police Station where statements of the prosecutrix as well as his wife were recorded. In his cross-examination he was confronted with his statement recorded by the police on 4.4.2009 wherein it was not so recorded that he had tried to contact accused for about 3 to 4 times but could not do so. He further admitted in his cross-examination that his daughter never told him about .

21. A perusal of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution both ocular as well as documentary demonstrates and establishes that it is not as if the prosecutrix had voluntarily lodged a complaint against the accused on the alleged grounds that accused had established sexual relations with her on the pretext of marriage and because accused had refused to marry her, therefore, she was lodging the complaint. It is borne out from the record that in fact the prosecutrix and the accused were caught in a compromising position by the step mother of prosecutrix and it is thereafter at the instance of the father of the prosecutrix that she lodged the complaint against the accused in the police station. In other words, till the time prosecutrix and accused were found in a compromising position by the .

accused maintained sexual relations with her she was more than 16 years of age and was in a position to understand and be a consenting party to the said acts. Besides this a perusal of the statement of prosecutrix itself demonstrates that her statement is neither trustworthy nor reliable so as to be made the basis for convicting the accused.

of

23. As we have already discussed it is not as if the prosecutrix voluntarily on her own lodged the FIR against the accused but the said FIR rt was lodged after she was caught by her step mother in a compromising position with the accused. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that accused had established sexual relations with the prosecutrix against her will or without her consent or accused had entered into sexual relations with the prosecutrix by giving her allurement of marriage . In the absence of any such evidence placed on record by the prosecution these conclusions in our opinion cannot be arrived at just on the basis of conjectures and surmises.