IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No.: 282 of 2015.
Reserved On : 17.04.2017.
.
Decided on: 02.06.2017.
State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant.
Versus
Virender Singh @ Golu and others … Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the appellant : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Addl. AG with
Mr. Vikram Thakur, Dy. AG.
For the respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Jamuna Pathik,
Advocate.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
By way of this appeal, the State has challenged the
judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Hamirpur, Camp at Barsar, in Sessions Trial No. 22 of
2013, dated 14.01.2015, vide which, learned Trial Court has
acquitted the present respondents for commission of offences
punishable under Section 363, 376D and 506 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
2
2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on
09.05.2013, complainant/prosecutrix moved an application
.
(Ext. PW1/A) that she was a permanent resident of village
Biar and was a student of B.A. 1st year in Government
College, Barsar and accused Virender @ Golu studied with her
up to 10+2 class and he alongwith other accused, namely,
Bhupinder Singh and Ankush (Lala) were residents of
Nanawan. As per complainant, she used to go to college by
bus and in case she missed the bus, then she used to catch
the bus from Nanawan. Accused were unemployed and
vagabonds, who often were found sitting idle on Biar bridge.
They used to pass indecent remarks and comments upon the
complainant which she used to ignore. In the month of
November/December, 2012, accused Virender Singh asked
the complainant for mobile number of one Renu, which was
refused by the complainant. As a result of this, accused
Virender Singh started nursing grudge against the
complainant. On 26.03.2013, when she was studying in the
room of her house, at around 11:30 p.m., when she went to
the bathroom and switched on the light after opening the
door, she found accused Virender there. On inquiry as to
what he was doing there, accused caught hold of complainant
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
3
and in the meantime, other accused who were hiding near
around also reached there. Accused Virender Singh gagged
.
the mouth of complainant and thereafter all the accused lifted
the complainant and took her to Biar ‘khud’. There accused
Virender Singh attempted to commit wrong act with her but
she resisted. However despite her resistance, accused
Virender Singh forcibly committed sexual intercourse with
her, as a result of which, she became unconscious. When the
complainant gained conscious, she found herself lying naked
at the spot. Accused Bhupinder was carrying a torch and
accused Ankush was in possession of a mobile phone whereas
accused Virender Singh, who was wearing a white shawl was
carrying a ‘Darat’. When the complainant asked the accused
as to what enmity they had with her, accused Ankush replied
that they had no enmity with her but they love her. Thereafter
complainant wore her clothes and accused asked her to go
straight to her house and also threatened her that in case she
disclosed the incident to anyone, her sister will also meet the
same fate at same place and they will also kidnap her brother.
On the said threatening, out of fear, complainant did not
disclose the incident to anyone. Thereafter on 30.03.2013,
when complainant alighted from a private bus at Nanawan
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
4
and was on her way to her house, accused met her and asked
her to meet them at the same place again and threatened her
.
that in case she did not come, they would make public her
video clip which was prepared by them. Whenever accused
used to meet the complainant, they used to harass her on
said count, however, the complainant did not succumb to
said pressure. Further as per the prosecution, mother of the
complainant on 07.05.2013 came to know about some
indecent video clip of the complainant, however, when she
inquired about the said fact from the complainant, on account
of threats and fear of accused, nothing was disclosed to her
by the complainant. Thereafter on 08.05.2013, her ‘Mausi’
Vishav Sharma visited their house and on her asking, the
entire incident was disclosed by the complainant to her
‘Mausi’. Thereafter complainant filed application Ext. PW1/A
to the police, on the basis of which, FIR Ext. PW17/A was
registered. The matter was investigated by SI Vikram Singh.
Prosecutrix was medically examined at CHC Barsar vide MLC
Ext. PW19/B. Videography of the statements of Santosh
Kumari, Kamla Devi and Vishav Sharma under Section 161 of
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short referred as
‘Cr.P.C’) alongwith supplementary statement of prosecutrix
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
5
was conducted. Accused persons were arrested on the same
day. Their mobile phones were seized and taken into
.
possession. They were also subjected to medical examination.
Prosecutrix identified the spot from where she was lifted and
where the alleged wrong act was committed upon her. On the
basis of disclosure statement Ext. PW11/A made by accused
Virender Singh, a white shawl and a ‘Darat’ were recovered by
the police. Mobile phones of the accused were sent to CFSL,
Hyderabad. Report of FSL was obtained which is Ext.
PW10/J. Statement of witnesses were recorded as per their
version. Statement of prosecutrix was also recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur.
3. After the completion of the investigation, challan
was filed in the Court and as a prima-facie case was found
against the accused, they were charged for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 363, 376D and 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
4. Learned trial Court vide its judgment under
challenge acquitted all the accused of the charges framed
against them by holding that the story propounded by the
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
6
complainant of sexual assault on her alongwith her
kidnapping and threatening given to her by accused persons
.
appeared to be a false and concocted one. Learned trial Court
held that statement of complainant (PW1) did not appear to be
cogent, reliable and trustworthy. As per learned trial Court
her statement did not inspire confidence. It was held by
learned trial Court that the prosecution had failed to establish
the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
5. r Feeling aggrieved by the judgment so passed by
learned trial Court, the State has filed this appeal.
6. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate
General as well as Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent. We have also gone through the
records of the case as well as the judgment passed by learned
trial Court.
7. In the present case, the respondents/accused
already have the benefit of a judgment of acquittal passed in
their favour by the learned trial Court. It has been held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ankoos and Others
versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 94
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
7
“12. This Court has, time and again, dealt with the
scope of exercise of power by the Appellate Court
against judgment of acquittal under Sections
378 and 386, Cr.P.C. It has been repeatedly held
.
that if two views are possible, the Appellate Court
should not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of
acquittal. This Court has laid down that Appellate
Court shall not reverse a judgment of acquittal
because another view is possible to be taken. It is
not necessary to multiply the decisions on the
subject and reference to a later decision of this
Court in Ghurey Lal v. State Of Uttar
Pradesh1 shall suffice wherein this Court
considered a long line of cases and held thus :
(SCC p.477, paras 69 -70)
“69. The following principles emerge from the
cases above:
1. The appellate court may review the
evidence in appeals against acquittal under
Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is
wide and the appellate court can reappreciate
the entire evidence on record. It can review the
trial court’s conclusion with respect to both
facts and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until
proven guilty. The accused possessed this
presumption when (2008) 10 SCC 450 he was
before the trial court. The trial court’s acquittal
bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration
must be given to the trial court’s decision. This
is especially true when a witness’ credibility is
at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
8
take a different view of the evidence. There
must also be substantial and compelling
reasons for holding that the trial court was
.
wrong.
70. In light of the above, the High Court and
other appellate courts should follow the well-
settled principles crystallised by number of
judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise
disturb the trial court’s acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or
otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it
has “very substantial and compelling reasons”
for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the
appellate court would have “very substantial
and compelling reasons” to discard the trial
court’s decision. “Very substantial and
compelling reasons” exist when:
(i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard
to the facts is palpably wrong;
(ii) The trial court’s decision was based on
an erroneous view of law;
(iii) The trial court’s judgment is likely to
result in “grave miscarriage of justice”;
(iv) The entire approach of the trial court in
dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
(v) The trial court’s judgment was
manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
(vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence
or misread the material evidence or has ignored
material documents like dying
declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
(vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not
exhaustive.
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
9
2. The appellate court must always give
proper weight and consideration to the findings
of the trial court.
.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached-
-one that leads to acquittal, the other to
conviction–the High Courts/appellate courts
must rule in favour of the accused.”
8. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kahan
Chand, 2016 (1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 576, a Coordinate
Bench of this Court has held as under
“19. The accused has had the advantage of
having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping
in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex
Court in Mohamed Ankoos and others versus
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that
the Court below has not correctly appreciated the
evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused
has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for
interference is called for. The present appeal is
dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the
accused are discharged.”
9. Therefore, keeping in view the principles laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the
abovementioned judgments, we will proceed to adjudicate
upon in the present appeal.
10. The prosecutrix entered the witness box as PW1,
whereas her mother Santosh Kumari entered the witness box
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
10
as PW2. Besides them, aunt of the prosecutrix (Mausi), Smt.
Vishav Sharma entered the witness box as PW3. Prosecutrix
.
(PW1) deposed in the Court that in May, 2013, she had
completed her B.A. 1st year. She deposed that accused
Virender @ Golu was her class fellow and they had done their
10+2 from the same school. She further deposed that she
knew other accused who were residents of village Nanawan,
Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur. She further deposed that
she used to commute from her village to Barsar by bus and
normally, she used to board bus from her village Biar, but at
times from village Nanawan also. She deposed that accused
were unemployed and vagabonds and were usually found
sitting idle at Biar bridge. She deposed that accused used to
pass indecent remarks and comments upon her. She deposed
that in November/December, 2012, accused Virender
inquired Cell Number of a girl named Renu from her who was
friend of her sister and was known to her, but she refused to
divulge the Cell number of said Renu. She deposed that on
account of this, accused Virender started nursing grudge
against her. On 26.03.2013, she was studying at her home
and at about 11:30 p.m. When she went to bathroom, as she
opened the door of the same and switched on the light, she
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
11
saw accused Virender present there. She asked him as to
what he was doing there and attempted to run away but
.
accused caught hold of her and he gagged her mouth. She
further deposed that in the meantime, other accused also
joined him and they lifted her and forcibly took her to Biar
‘Khad’. She further deposed that accused Bhupender Singh
and Ankush caught hold of her arms and legs and accused
Virender attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her.
She further deposed that accused Ankush and Virender
forcibly removed her ‘salwar’ and accused Virender forcibly
committed sexually intercourse with her and thereafter she
fell unconscious. As per prosecutrix when she gained her
conscious, she found herself naked and she also found that
accused Bhupender had switched on a Torch whereas
accused Ankush was having a Cell Phone in his hand.
According to her, accused Virender was standing on one side
wearing a white coloured shawl and was holding a ‘Draat’ in
his hand. She deposed that when she asked the accused as to
what enmity they had with her, accused Ankush said that
there was no enmity, but they loved her. As per prosecutrix,
she thereafter put on her clothes and accused persons
threatened her with dire consequences and asked her to go to
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
12
home straight away and not to disclose the incident to
anyone, otherwise they will harm her siblings. The accused
.
also threatened that her sister would also meet the same fate.
According to prosecutrix, she did not disclose the said
incident to anyone out of fear. She further deposed that on
30.03.2013, when she was returning home after appearing in
Economics examination, accused met her at Village Nanawan
and asked her to meet them at the same place, failing which,
they would make public her video clipping. She further
deposed that she did not succumb to the said threats of the
accused. She further deposed that on 07.05.2013, her mother
heard rumours about a video clip of her and when her mother
confronted her about this, she did not disclose anything to
her mother out of fear. She deposed that on 08.05.2013, her
maternal aunt Vishav Sharma came to meet her, to whom she
disclosed the entire incident including threats given to her by
the accused. She stated that at that time her mother as well
as Ward Member Kamla Devi were also present. She deposed
that thereafter the matter was reported by her mother and
Kamla Devi to Naresh Katna, Up Pradhan, Gram Panchayat
Nanawan, on 09.05.2013 and on the same evening, she filed a
complaint at Police Station Barsar, on the basis of which, FIR
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
13
was lodged. In her cross examination though this witness
denied that there were houses adjoining to her house but self
.
stated that there were two houses nearby. She deposed that
these houses were of her maternal aunt and one Prakash
Chand. She admitted that houses of Ganga Ram, Prem Chand
and Gian Chand were adjoining to her house. She stated that
the place of occurrence at Biar ‘Khud’ was about 400 meters
from her house. She admitted that there is a Primary Health
Centre and cluster of Jhugies of Biharis at Biar ‘Khud’. She
also admitted that path leading from her house to Biar ‘Khud’
is narrow and rough having bushes on both sides. She
deposed that she did not remember the manner in which she
was lifted and taken to Biar ‘Khud’ by the accused persons,
however, she made efforts to rescue and free herself from the
clutches of accused persons. Suggestions given to her by the
defence that she was having an affair with accused Virender
as well as physical relations with him were however denied by
her. She admitted the suggestion that her maternal aunt i.e.
Vishav Sharma was a police Constable and was posted at
Mandi. She admitted the suggestion that complaint Ext.
PW1/A was written by her in the presence of her mother
Santosh Kumari and maternal aunt Vishav Sharma. She
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
14
admitted the suggestion that after her mother came to know
about the rumours of her video clip went to house of Pradhan
.
alongwith Kamla Devi. She feigned ignorance that as to
whether her mother wanted amicable settlement on account
of mistake committed by her (prosecutrix). She admitted the
suggestion that she would not have reported the matter, had
there been no rumour about her obscene video clip and CD.
11. Mother of the prosecutrix Santosh Kumari entered
the witness box as PW2 and deposed that in the month of
March, 2013, her daughter was student of B.A. 1st year at
Govt. Degree College, Barsar and on 07.05.2013, she came to
know from her relatives that a rumour was going around that
some obscene video clip of her daughter (peosecutrix) was in
circulation and when she confronted the prosecutrix qua the
same, she refused about any such incident. She further
stated that prosecutrix kept refusing despite her repeated
asking and thereafter she disclosed this fact to her sister
Vishav Sharma, who was living in Mandi and she came to her
house on 08.05.2013 and when they again confronted the
prosecutrix about the matter, she disclosed the entire incident
which took place on 26.03.2013. This witness further stated
that after this she disclosed the entire incident to her
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
15
husband, who used to work at Jammu and he advised her to
take the matter to Pradhan of the local Panchayat. She
.
deposed that on 09.05.2013, she alongwith Ward Member
Kamla Devi met Up Pradhan Naresh Katna and disclosed the
incident to him. She deposed that accused persons and
prosecutrix were called by Up Pradhan, however, accused
persons denied their involvement in the matter. In her cross
examination, she admitted that she had approached the Up
Pradhan Naresh Katna with the stand that mistake had been
committed by the children and the matter should be amicably
resolved. She denied that her sister Vishav Sharma was not
ready for any amicable settlement and it was on her behest,
that prosecutrix filed complaint against the accused on false
allegations. This witness also admitted the suggestion that all
the accused persons were residents of village Nanwan, which
was at a distance of ½ kms from their village.
12. PW 3, Smt. Vishav Sharma, aunt (Mausi) of the
prosecutrix, deposed before the Court that she was posted as
lady Constable at Police Line, Mandi. On 07.05.2013, at 7:30
p.m. she received a telephonic call from her elder sister
Santosh Kumari that there were rumours that obscene video
clip of her daughter i.e. prosecutrix was in circulation and
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
16
prosecutrix was not disclosing anything and in these
circumstances, she was called by her sister to ascertain the
.
truth. She further deposed that on 08.05.2013, she came to
village Biar and met her sister and niece and thereafter, she
inquired about the rumours from the prosecutrix, on which,
the prosecutrix disclosed the entire incident which took place
on 26.03.2013. In her cross examination, this witness
admitted that after the disclosure of facts to her by
prosecutrix on 08.05.2013, matter was not immediately
reported to the Police. She denied that prosecutrix had
disclosed to her about her love affair and physical relations
with accused Virender. She denied that because of these
reasons, she went to her parental house without reporting the
matter to the police and on next day went to Police Station
from her parents’ house.
13. Ward Member Kamla Devi entered the witness box
as PW4 and she stated that on 08.05.2013, in between 3:00-
4:00 p.m., she happened to visit the house of Santosh Kumari
i.e. mother of prosecutrix, who told her that there were
rumours about obscene video clip of the prosecutrix in
circulation. She deposed that prosecutrix was confronted with
said facts but she denied them. She further stated that on the
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
17
same night, at about 7:00-8:00 p.m., she was called again to
her house by Santosh Kumari and when she reached there,
.
she met Santosh Kumari and her sister Vishav Sharma. She
stated that prosecutrix was again asked about the rumours,
on which, she disclosed the entire incident. This witness
further deposed that thereafter she advised Santosh Kumari
to seek assistance from Pradhan. This witness further
deposed that on 09.05.2013, she took Santosh Kumari to Up
Pradhan Naresh Katna and after the incident was narrated to
him, he called the accused persons in the house of accused
Ankush Katna, but the accused denied their involvement in
the matter. In her cross examination, this witness stated that
her house was situated at a distance of 100 meters from the
house of prosecutrix and there were 6-7 houses in between
her house and house of prosecutrix.
14. Up Pradhan Naresh Chand entered the witness
box as PW7 and stated that on 08.05.2013, he received a
telephonic call from Santosh Kumari that she wanted to meet
him urgently. He deposed that thereafter he met her at Kalka
Mata Temple, Tikkar Rajputan, where Santosh Kumari met
him alongwith her daughter (prosecutrix), her sister Vishav
Sharma and Ward Member Kamla Devi and they told him that
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
18
they had heard about obscene video clip of prosecutrix in
circulation and he was asked to call the accused to ascertain
.
this fact. He further stated that on 09.05.2013, he called the
accused persons in his house but they denied their
involvement in the matter. This witness further stated that
accused Virender during the course of conversation disclosed
to him that on 07.05.2013, at about 10:30 a.m., he (Virender)
received a call from the prosecutrix that he (Virender) was
being falsely implicated by her relatives and she had asked
him to run away. This witness further deposed that mother of
the prosecutrix wanted amicable settlement of the matter in
the Panchayat and she was not interested to report the matter
to the Police. He deposed that thereafter he called mother of
prosecutrix to his office for taking the matter before
Panchayat quorum, but she did not appear before the
Panchayat. Records demonstrate that this witness was
declared as a hostile witness and was cross examined at
length by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. In his cross
examination by Assistant Public Prosecutor he again
reiterated that mother of prosecutrix was not interested to
take the matter to the police. He also admitted that one of the
accused was his real nephew. In his cross examination by
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
19
learned defence counsel he admitted it to be correct that
accused Virender and prosecutrix used to roam around
.
together.
15. Dr. Priyanka Sharma, entered the witness box as
PW19 and she proved on record MLC Ext. PW19/B and she
stated that in her opinion there were no signs of recent
vaginal penetration and there was no sign of general physical
injuries but possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled
out in the recent past. In her cross examination, she could
not opine that whether prosecutrix was habitual of sexual
intercourse.
16. Investigating Officer SI Vikram Singh, entered the
witness box as PW 20. In his cross examination he admitted
the suggestion that prosecutrix at the time of filing of
complaint was accompanied by her mother and maternal aunt
Vishav Sharma. He also admitted that prosecutrix filed the
complaint regarding the incident after 1 ½ months and during
the said period, prosecutrix was attending her college
regularly. He also admitted that Forensic examination of Cell
Phones of the accused did not reveal of any video clip of the
prosecutrix.
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
20
17. In our considered view, what is apparent from the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses is that the mother of
.
the prosecutrix somewhere in the month of May, 2013 heard
rumours about an obscene video clip of the prosecutrix being
in circulation. She confronted the prosecutrix with the said
rumours but prosecutrix denied the same. In this
background, she called her sister PW3 Vishav Sharma, who
was serving as a Constable in Police and was posted at Mandi
and when r she (Vishav Sharma, PW3) confronted the
prosecutrix about the matter, she disclosed to her and her
mother Santosh Kumari about her alleged abduction by the
accused on the night of 26th March, 2013 from her house and
thereafter accused Virender having sexually molested her at
Biar bridge.
18. Now it is a matter of record and also evident from
the testimony of Investigating Officer, PW20 SI Vikram Singh
that forensic examination of mobile phones of the accused
had demonstrated that there was no obscene video clip of the
prosecutrix recorded in the said mobile phones.
19. The alleged incident as per the prosecutrix had
taken place in the night of 26th March, 2013. According to
her, when on the alleged night at about 11:30 p.m. she went
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
21
to bathroom and as soon as she switched on the light of
bathroom, she saw accused Virender there and when she
.
asked him as to what was he doing there and tried to run
away, she was caught hold by accused Virender and her
mouth was gagged and in the meanwhile, other accused
persons also reached there and they lifted her to Biar bridge,
where she was physically molested by accused Virender. In
our considered view, the version which has been given by the
prosecutrix about the alleged happening of the incident is
highly unbelievable. It is difficult to believe that the
prosecutrix was lifted from inside of her own house i.e. from
the bathroom of her house and thereafter taken to a bridge,
which admittedly was 400 metres away from the house of
prosecutrix and none came to know about the alleged incident
including the mother of the prosecutrix, who was very much
present in the house as it is not the case of the prosecutrix
that on the fateful night, she was alone in the house. It is
apparent and evident from evidence on record that it is not as
if the house of prosecutrix was at an isolated place. Therefore,
also it is highly unbelievable that no one came to know that a
girl was lifted from her house by three persons, especially
when prosecutrix herself has stated that she was making
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
22
efforts to escape herself from the clutches of the accused. The
contention of the prosecutrix that she did not narrate the
.
alleged incident to anyone out of fear and out of threatenings
which were given to her by the accused also does not inspires
confidence. It is a matter of record that disclosure of her being
abducted and subjected to sexual molestation after 1 ½
months after her abduction may be was not a voluntary act of
the prosecutrix. It is a matter of record that when the
prosecutrix was initially confronted by her mother that there
were rumours to the effect that an obscene video clip of her
was in circulation, she repeatedly refused these allegations. It
is also a matter of record that alleged incident of her being
abducted and sexually molested came into existence only
after her alleged disclosure of the said happening to her
‘Mausi’ who incidentally happens to be a constable in the
police. In this background, this possibility cannot be ruled out
that when the mother of the prosecutrix heard rumours about
the obscene video clipping of her daughter making rounds
and the prosecutrix refuted the same and thereafter her
mother calling her sister to inquire from the prosecutrix, as
story was concocted to frame the accused. In fact, defence of
the accused especially that of Virender is not that they were
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
23
strangers to the prosecutrix. It is the case of accused Virender
that he was having an affair with the prosecutrix and they
.
were also having physical relations with each other. Now a
perusal of the statement of mother of the prosecutrix
demonstrates that on more than one occasion she stated that
she was interested in amicable settlement of the matter rather
than reporting the same to the police. This fact has also come
out in the deposition of other prosecution witnesses. In this
background, the possibility of something else happening
instead of the alleged occurrences, which were made the basis
of the FIR cannot be ruled out. It is pertinent to mention this
fact also that even the place where the prosecutrix was
allegedly raped by accused Virender was not a secluded place
as there were labourers living in ‘Jhugies’. All these
circumstances, in our considered view, shroud the case of the
prosecution with great suspicion. Neither the statement of the
prosecutrix is confidence inspiring nor does the same seem to
be trustworthy and reliable. Even the statements of PW2 and
PW3 do not inspire confidence for convicting the accused for
commission of offences for which they have been charged.
20. Besides this, we have also perused the judgment
passed by the learned trial Court and a perusal of the same
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP
24
demonstrates that the learned trial Court has taken into
consideration all the aspects of the matter and after
.
discussing the same at length, it has returned the findings of
acquittal in favour of accused. In our considered view also, on
the basis of material on record, it cannot be said that the
prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, the conclusion
arrived at by the learned trial Court that prosecution had
failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable
doubt cannot be faulted with.
21. Accordingly, as there is no infirmity with the
findings returned by the learned trial Court and further as
there is no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed,
so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Sanjay Karol)
Acting Chief Justice
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
June 02, 2017.
(narender)
03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP