State of H.P. vs Lattu Ram

R.B. Misra, J.—The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 22.11.1996, passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, Sessions Division Rampur Bushahar, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 40-R/7 of 1995, u/s 368/376 of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting the alleged accused/respondent.

In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. On 7.9.1994, the victim/prosecutrix (PW. 1) [name not given], was working as volunteer teacher in Government Primary School, Kanai, while going back to her village after school hours with Sonam Dorje, accused Lattu Ram, a Forest Guard also came from behind. The accused started talking with the prosecutrix about the death of his son which the victim/prosecutrix was hearing. The accused caught hold of the victim/prosecutrix for committing sexual intercourse with her, however, victim/prosecutrix freed her from the clutches of the accused. The headmaster had again gone ahead and victim/prosecutrix tried to take help of the headmaster, but the accused again caught hold of her taking the benefit of darkness and committed sexual assault with her by taking her in the Nullah. The accused gave her one golden ring alongwith the bunch of keys of his house and told her that she become his wife. Whereupon, the victim/prosecutrix refused to accept the keys and told that she is already married but the accused told her that he is not having good relation with his wife because she is the common wife of his brother and the accused. The victim/prosecutrix did not disclose such incident to her parents. On 8.9.1994, in the morning when she was going to school, accused asked her to come after taking meal and in the evening when she was returning from the school, accused also met the victim/prosecutrix. The victim/prosecutrix had narrated the entire incident to her brother and father. Her father become furious and asked her to leave his house, as such, the victim/prosecutrix had gone to the house of her maternal aunt in village Talangi. On 15.9.1994, she was taken to Sangla by Bharat, who is related to her brother. Her brother Ishwar Singh, accused Lattu Ram and Pardhan Gram Panchayat, Sapni, were present in the quarter of Bharat, where accused accepted the victim/prosecutrix as his wife and indicated everything in writing. The victim/prosecutrix was taken by the accused in the evening and kept in the house of some relative at Karchham. Thereafter, accused did not return to that place, as such, the victim/prosecutrix reported the matter to the police.

The accused was charged for the offences u/s 368/376 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to Sessions Court. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 prosecution witnesses. Whereas, the accused through his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., has denied the prosecution case.

PW. 1 Yang Chang Jangmo, the victim/prosecutrix, in support of the prosecution case, has stated that she was sexually assaulted by the accused, and was allured for marriage. The Golden ring given to her was snatched by one Rakesh and when she narrated the entire incident to her family members, her father become furious and she was ousted from the house of her father. She has further stated that thereafter, she had gone to the house of her father''s sister at village Talangi. It reveals that the victim/prosecutrix had gone to school on 9.9.1994 and she did not disclose anything to the headmaster or any other person.

PW. 2 Shyam Singh, father of the victim/prosecutrix, supporting the prosecution case has stated that his daughter was sexually assaulted and when he came to know about the incident, he ousted her daughter from the house. PW. 2 in the cross-examination has stated that the incident was narrated by his daughter to him on the second day of incident.

PW. 3 Sh. Chain Ram has stated that on 15.9.1994, when he was coming from his village Batseri, accused Lattu Ram and Ishwar Singh, brother of the victim/prosecutrix, met him at Sangla. Ishwar Singh told him that accused has sexually assaulted her sister and has asked him to settle the dispute.

PW. 4 Sonam Dorje, headmaster of the school, has stated that on 7.9.1994 when he was coming back to his house he was accompanied by the victim/prosecutrix and the accused was coming from behind. However, the victim/prosecutrix came to the school after one or two days and she applied for four days casual leave. PW. 4 has however, denied the incident. As per testimony of PW. 4, there was rumour in the village that the victim/prosecutrix was trying to get herself married with the accused. PW. 4 has further stated in the cross-examination that the victim/prosecutrix had been going to school upto 17/18.9.1994.

PW. 5 Hari Ram was associated in investigation. PW. 6 Krishan Lal, PW. 7 Tanzin Dorje, PW. 9 H.C. Suresh Kumar and PW. 10 Raj Kumar, in discharge of their official duties had supported the prosecution case to the extent they were assigned the role.

PW. 11 ASI Bansi Lal, in support of prosecution case has stated in his cross-examination that the occurrence had taken place in the room of Kishori Lal.

PW. 12 Ishwar Singh, brother of the victim/prosecutrix, had not supported the case of the prosecution and has declared hostile.

PW. 13 Budhi Singh, I.O., in support of the prosecution case has stated that the accused had kept the victim/prosecutrix in his house after marrying her.

PW. 14 Dr. Brij Sharma had examined the victim/prosecutrix on 19.9.1994 and has only indicated that the prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse.

On the scrutiny of prosecution witnesses and material on record, it appears that the case of the prosecution has not been supported except by the victim/prosecutrix (PW. 1), however, her version has not been supported by PW. 4 Sonam Dorje, who was accompanying at the relevant to the victim/prosecutrix. PW. 2 Shyam Singh, father of the victim/prosecutrix and PW. 12 Ishwar Singh, brother of the victim/prosecutrix, have also not supported the case of the prosecution. The victim/prosecutrix (PW. 1) was 24 years of age at the time of incident and was serving as volunteer teacher in the school and was independently going and coming to the school and has stated to have not raised hue and cry, at the time of incident. According to the victim/prosecutrix, she was sexually assaulted, but she did not disclose to any person or even to the headmaster and had been going to the school upto 17/18.9.1994. As per version of PW. 13 Budhi Singh, I.O., the victim/prosecutrix remained in the house of the accused as his wife.

From the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix, the prosecution case is doubtful, it appears that PW. 1 was consenting party because she has not reported the matter immediately to her parents on 7.9.1994 and had been going to the school upto 17/18.9.1994. She has not even informed the incident to any member of the school or her family members or headmaster and remained silent. As such, in our considered view the learned Trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. In our considered view, there is no scope of interference in the findings given by learned Sessions Judge. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondent are hereby discharged.