State of H.P. vs Nand Lal

Per Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 2.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A and 342 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix, who was aged about 15-1/2 years and studying in 8th standard was kidnapped by accused Nand Lal with the intention of forcibly marrying her on 11.06.1999 at village Reghain, Tehsil Theog, Distt. Shimla and she was illegally confined by the accused first in his house at Reghain and thereafter in the house of his maternal grand father at Fagu.

The complaint was lodged on the next day i.e. 12.6.2011 at the instance of the father of the prosecutrix. According to him, his wife had informed him on 12.6.1999 itself that his daughter Reena had been kidnapped and had not returned from school on 11.6.1999 in the evening. She had sent her son Amin Chand in search of her daughter who returned and told her that he did not meet the prosecutrix. Thereafter his wife Shanti Devi went in search of the prosecutrix in village Reghain and there Krishna, sister of the prosecutrix, informed her mother that the prosecutrix had been forcibly taken by the accused to his residential room and the house stood bolted from inside. When his wife and daughter went to the room of Nand Lal they heard the cries of Reena. They asked him to open the door but the accused did not do so. His wife called the other residents of village Reghain but before those persons collected, the accused removed Reena from the room and took her somewhere else.

The mother of the prosecutrix has not been examined in Court. The father appeared as P.W.-1 and has repeated what was written in the F.I.R. It is important to note that as per his version the mother had first sent their son Amin Chand to village Bhalaich who returned and told her that he could not trace out the prosecutrix. According to the version of P.W.-1, who is a head constable, his wife had told him that till evening his daughter did not return and if his version is read as a whole, it appears that the wife went in the evening hours to look for the prosecutrix.

P.W.-2 is the sister of the prosecutrix. She is also a student and was living with her parents. The prosecutrix alongwith her mother and sister was residing in village Reghain itself. Her version is that on 11.6.1999 when she was returning to the village after making purchases from the shop she saw the prosecutrix coming back from the school. When the prosecutrix was near the house of the accused he dragged the prosecutrix inside his room and bolted the door from inside. The witness immediately rushed towards the house of the accused and heard the cries of her sister. According to her the accused told her that he wanted to marry the prosecutrix. She thereafter went home and reported the incident to the mother. This version is totally contradictory to that of the father.

The prosecutrix appeared as P.W.-3 and her version is that when she was crossing the house of accused Nand Lal at about 1 O''clock in the afternoon the accused was drunk and dragged her inside his house. He bolted the door from inside and when she tried to raise an alarm he raised the volume of the radio. According to her the accused called his sister who did not allow her to come out of the room. Her further version is that the mother of the accused handed over some clothes and she (the prosecutrix) was forcibly made to change the clothes by the sister of the accused. Thereafter, she was taken to Fagu through a jungle and kept in the house of the maternal grand father of the accused from where the police recovered her on 13.6.1999 at about 8-9 a.m.

These three witnesses are the relevant witnesses and the story given by them on the face of it appears to be false and contradictory. According to the father P.W. 1 he was informed by his wife on the next day i.e. 12.6.1999 that the daughter had not come home in the evening and thereafter his wife had sent her son to look for the daughter. He returned back and told that he could not trace out his sister and then P.W.-2 Krishna came home and told her mother that the prosecutrix had been taken by Nand Lal. The version of the prosecutrix is that she was kidnapped by Nand Lal at about 1 O''clock in the afternoon when she was returning from school. Her version is also that for about 3-4 hours in the afternoon she was kept in the house of the accused. According to Krishna she was just 100 feet behind her sister and saw the entire incident. If the version of the prosecutrix was true there is no explanation as to what prevented the mother, the sister, who at the relevant time was aged about 19 years and the brother to raise an alarm to call the villagers and get the prosecutrix outside the room of the accused. The mother should have immediately called the villagers and informed them about the incident and would not have waited till the next day to inform her husband about such a serious offence. The version of P.W.-2 that she was just 100 feet behind the prosecutrix and had seen the accused dragging her sister inside the room does not appear to be true because if that had been correct she would have immediately contacted the other villagers and would have ensured that her sister was rescued.

The mother and the sister of the accused are stated to have played an active part in confining the prosecutrix inside the room and in transporting her to the house of the maternal grand father but they have not been made accused in this case. The statement of P.W.-2 is contradictory to the statement of P.W.-3 in material aspects. When a suggestion was put to the sister (P.W.-2) that the prosecutrix and Shanti Devi, sister of the accused, were close friends, she denied the same but the prosecutrix in her statement admitted that she knew the sister of the accused since her childhood. In a small village it would be impossible for the accused to have kept hidden the prosecutrix in his house for 3-4 hours if the sister of the prosecutrix had actually seen the accused kidnapping the prosecutrix.

It is also unbelievable that from village Reghain to village Fagu, which is almost 20 to 25 Kms., the prosecutrix could have been forced to walk this distance and would not have met anybody in the village. P.W.-2 in her statement in Court had stated that she heard the cries of her sister and the accused told her that he had brought the prosecutrix to marry her. However, P.W.-3 (the prosecutrix) does not make any mention of her sister coming there and talking to the accused. This totally belies the version of the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix was forcibly abducted or kidnapped by the accused.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged.