State of Himachal Pradesh vs Sukhjinder Singh and Paramjit Singh alias Pampa

Justice R.B. Misra, J

The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 19.3.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 82/2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, acquitting the accused/respondents for the offence under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in reference to FIR No. 420 of 2005 dated 13.8.2005. The prosecution case, in brief, is that victim, minor, had been residing with her brother, Kesru Ram at the place of his working in an orchard. During the absence of Kesru Ram, two young persons, allegedly came to his quarter and fed ''Pakauras'' to the victim, whereafter she became mentally imbalanced and was taken outside the quarter on scooter to unknown place, however, they were apprehended by the police, on which she asked the police to inform her brother. In that reference FIR was lodged on 13.8.2005 at about 6.30 P.M. regarding her allegation that on 12.8.2005 in the absence of her brother, she was taken by the accused persons on scooter. After investigation, the accused persons were charged for the above offences.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 13 prosecution witnesses. Accused was also examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied the prosecution case.

PW-1, victim has stated that while she was studying in sixth class, she left the school and on 12.8.2005 when she was staying with her brother, Kesru Ram in Village Khrottal, where her brother Kesru Ram was deployed as Chokidar in apple orchard, during the absence of Kesru Ram, about 6.00 P.M., two unknown persons came to quarter and fed her Pakauras. After consuming the Pakauras, she became mentally imbalanced and was taken out on scooter and on 14.8.2005 police apprehended them and there only she disclosed that the accused has brought her. However, the version of PW-1 was not re-iterated in the same way in cross-examination, as PW-1 has stated that she was asked by accused, upon which she accompanied them, because she was not feeling mentally fit and when she was being taken in the scooter, she was not in sense. After 4-5 hours, it was night, she asked both the accused persons as to where she was being taken, upon which she was threatened and when she came in senses, she came to know that she was being taken to Anandpur Sahib.

PW-2, Kesru Ram in an endeavor to support the prosecution case has only stated that on his arrival, he could not notice the presence of PW-1 at his place and could notice only pieces of pakauras in the courtyard. Thereafter, he made search and on 13.8.2005 at about 3.00 A.M., he received a telephonic call on his mobile from Police Station Anandpur, that her sister has been apprehended at Anandpur along with two persons. Thereafter, he went to Anandpur and took the victim along with him.

Other prosecution witnesses are only either formal or not supporting the prosecution case, except PW-7 (Dr. Lakhbir Malhotra), who opined the radiological age of the victim/prosecutrix as 15 to 17 years. Whereas, PW-4 (Megh Singh Thakur) has indicated that as per admission and withdrawal register the date of birth of victim was 2.9.1991. However, nothing has been brought on record to show that on whose instance, such date of birth of victim was recorded.

On analysis of prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice that PW-1 has not stated that any offer of marriage was being made by the accused. Nothing has been brought on record that the remaining part of the pakauras, left at the courtyard of quarter of brother of victim, was sent for chemical analysis or not. Nothing was brought on record to show that whether the remaining part of the pakauras was containing any material which was dangerous to life or was of intoxicating in nature. From the testimony of PW-1, nothing has been emerging that how she consumed pakauras at the instance of two accused, moreso, where they were strangers to her. It is not the case of PW-1 that she was allured for marriage, more so, no complaint of any misbehavior has been made by the complainant against the accused. The statement of PW-1 is not consistent, as such, not inspiring confidence. Even if for the sake of arguments, without accepting that she was minor, the testimony of PW-1 is not inspiring confidence. Doubt is created that why she was taken by two accused persons, when they had no purpose for marriage or to exploit her physically.

In our considered view too, we do not find any scope of interference in the judgment and findings arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. As such, the Criminal Appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondents, are hereby discharged.