State of Himachal Pradesh vs Mohan Singh

Justice R.B. Misra, J.—The present Criminal Appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment dated 31.3.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 20-N/7 of 2001 acquitting the accused/respondent for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC in reference to F.I.R. No. 52 of 2001, dated 6.8.2001, Police Station Renuka Ji, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P.

The prosecution case is that complainant Sh. Bal Kishan r/o village Khairi Changan had eight sons and three daughters. The youngest of whom was the prosecutrix (PW-4) who at the relevant time was about 17 years of age and who with the permission of her parents went to fetching grass from the grassland and for that she proceeded towards the grassland where she came across the accused accompanied by one Chaman Lal and two ladies, where accused expressed his desire to marry the victim and on her refusal to marry the accused, Chaman Lal threatened her and asked if she did not accompany the accused, she would be killed and then Chaman Lal took out a knife and threatened her and under the threats the victim silently accompanied the accused and boarded the jeep parked nearby in which she was taken to Nahan and from there to village Naar Nauti where she and the accused stayed in the house of Sh. Jungveer Singh, brother of the accused and on the following day she was recovered by the police accompanied by Prem Singh, brother of the prosecutrix, from the house of Jungveer Singh. However, on investigation accused was charged for the aforesaid offences.

In order to prove its case prosecution examined ten witnesses, whereas, the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution case.

In cross-examination, she/PW-4 had reiterated that she was threatened by Chaman Lal and two ladies. Police did not inquire about the colour of the jeep. She further stated in cross-examination that accused was familiar to her/victim since childhood and before this occurrence accused had expressed his desire to marry her for more than once and every time she refused to oblige. However, such fact was not revealed to her parents nor any of relations that the accused wanted to marry her. As stated by the victim on 5.8.2001 victim was also in the house of the accused�s maternal uncle but the victim did not talk to the accused.

On analysis of the sole testimony of the victim (PW-4), it appears that the victim is not consistent in her testimony and has made improvements and had given different version in the crossexamination. As stated by PW-4/victim, the accused was known to here since childhood and despite his proposal for marrying her she did not divulge such fact to her parents or any of the relatives. As stated by the victim in her cross examination that on way she also met Darshan Singh belonging to her village, however, she did not tell him that she was being taken by the accused and others to Nahan against her wishes. The victim never told Darshan Singh that she was being taken by the accused to Nahan, rather, she simply told that she was going to Nahan.

Bal Kishan, PW-1, in support of the prosecution case has stated that the victim did not return home on the fateful day and later on his son Madan Singh came to know from Darshan Singh that the victim was seen in the company of accused near village Malgaon. Accordingly the matter was reported to the police. PW-1 further stated in cross-examination that he came to know such fact after returning home in the evening. As further stated by PW-1, police had not recovered age certificate from him.

Prem Singh, PW-2, the real brother of the victim, whereas, on one hand has stated that in the evening of 5.8.2001 his brother Gian Chand came to him and told that the victim was sent for collecting grass but she had not returned home. Later on PW-2 came to know that victim was seen in the company of the accused at Malgaon village. This statement is contrary to the statement of PW-1 who was appraised by Darshan Singh that the victim was taken by the accused. PW-2 has very categorically stated in cross-examination that Darshan Singh had not met him and as per the testimony of PW-2, his brother Madan Singh had quoted Darshan Singh to have revealed that the victim was in the company of accused near Malgaon village and on suspicion it was thought that accused might have taken the victim for the purpose of marriage.

Jagat Singh/PW-3, who joined investigation has stated that he was grazing cattle in village Naar Nauti from where he was called by the police and on reaching the house of Balwant Singh he noticed that police was sitting in the verandah of his house and the accused and the victim were also sitting in the same verandah and victim was not recovered from the house of the accused in his presence.

PW-5, Gian Chand the real brother of the victim had obtained certificate Ext. PW 5/A from the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat indicating the date of birth of the victim.

PW-6, Madan Singh another brother of the victim has stated that victim was sent by the mother to collect grass and on 5.8.2001 Darshan Singh told PW-6 that he had come across the victim and the accused near Malgaon village and as such PW-6 gave such information to his father. Testimony of PW-6 is also in derogation to the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5. As stated by PW-2 his brother Gian Chand came to him and told him that the victim was sent for grass collection and had not returned home, however, PW-5 has not stated in the above manner.

PW-7, Darshan Singh belonging to the same village as of victim has stated that he had gone to Dadahu in connection with some personal work and while returning he observed the victim near Malgaon at about 3 � 4 p.m. and at that time he did not see the accused or any other person with her.

On the analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice apparent contradictions and discrepancies, so much so, the testimony of PW-4, i.e. the victim is also full of contradictions and hence does not inspire confidence. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the victim was kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of her parents and was abducted or seduced for compelling her to marry the accused. In our considered view the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Keeping in view the contradictions and discrepancies in our considered view the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused/respondent, as such, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused/respondent are discharged.