IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CRM-A-879 of 2019
Date of Decision: 09.7.2019
State of Haryana and another …….Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: – Mr. G.S.Goria, Advocate
for the applicant.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.
The applicant has filed the present application under Section
378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated
20.2.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide
which accused/respondent No. 2-Vinod has been acquitted of the charges
under Sections 120-B/Section376/Section494/Section506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘SectionIPC’ for
short) and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and SectionScheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘Act’ for short) in FIR No. 80 dated 24.2.2017,
registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faridabad.
As per the prosecution story, the above said FIR was registered
on the complaint of complainant/prosecutrix stating therein that one Pankaj
was running an office of Consultancy at Nehru Ground where she had gone
for employment with her bio-data, in which her mobile number was
mentioned. Said Pankaj called her for employment time and again and later
on expressed his desire to marry her and on the pretext of marriage, he had
1 of 5
14-07-2019 06:34:18 :::
committed rape upon the applicant and also prepared obscene video which
was not in her knowledge. Later, respondent No. 2-Vinod, started following
her on Facebook and Whatsapp and had asked her to meet him. On her
refusal, respondent No. 2-Vinod started contacting her on Whatsapp and
told her that he had the knowledge about her relationship with Pankaj and
that he had purchased the obscene C.D. from Pankaj for a sum of Rs. 10.00
lacs, which was in his possession and also threatened her to spoil her
reputation by uploading her video on the internet. Respondent No. 2-Vinod
performed marriage with the applicant on 13.2.2017 in Arya Samaj Temple,
New Delhi. However, at the time of marriage he had already been married
and having children. Respondent No. 2 was harassing the applicant on
telephone and he also told her family members that he had performed
marriage with the applicant and wanted to take her back. On coming to
know about the whole story, the parents of the applicant filed a complaint
against respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities,
challan was presented against the accused-respondent No. 2.
Vide order dated 18.9.2017, charge was framed against the
accused-respondent No. 2 under Sections 120-B/Section376/Section494/Section506 IPC and
Section 3 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined as
many as 10 witnesses.
PW-1 Roshan Lal, Advocate, Tees Hazari Court, Delhi, Oath
Commissioner deposed that declaration of marriage affidavit (Mark-A) of
Vinod Kumar-respondent No. 2 and marriage affidavit of applicant (Mark-
B) had been attested by him.
2 of 5
14-07-2019 06:34:19 :::
Applicant-prosecutrix stepped into the witness box as
PW-3 and stated that on the pretext of marriage, Pankaj had committed rape
upon her and prepared a C.D. Thereafter, after about three years, the
applicant came in contact with Vinod Sharma-respondent No. 2, who was
friend of Pankaj. She further deposed that at later stage, Vinod-respondent
No. 2 had started threatening her to defame her. On 7.9.2016, Vinod called
her telephonically behind Rose Garden, NIT, Faridabad and raped her in his
car SX4 colour silver and also told her that he had purchased her obscene
video from Pankaj for Rs. 10.00 lacs. Thereafter on 13.2.2017, Vinod
solemnized marriage with her in Delhi and again committed rape upon her.
Similarly PW-4 Mahesh Parshad, father of the applicant,
deposed that Vinod-respondent No. 2 had threatened him on mobile phone
and addressed him by name of his caste and had also committed rape upon
Along with other witnesses, the prosecution had also examined
PW-10 Dr. Manish Dayal, who had medico legally examined Vinod Kumar
Sharma after obtaining his consent, Ex. PW-10/A and during examination,
Vinod Kumar was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. He
proved the MLR as Ex. PW-10/B.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant
had been subjected to cruelty at the hands of Pankaj who later on handed
over the obscene video to Vinod-respondent No. 2, who had committed rape
upon the applicant time and again. It is further argued that Vinod-
respondent No. 2 solemnized marriage with the applicant on 13.2.2017 and
when the applicant came to know that respondent No. 2 was 35 years old
and had already been married and having children from that marriage, she
3 of 5
14-07-2019 06:34:19 :::
told all these facts to her parents and later on, the FIR in question was
We have heard learned counsel for the applicant but do not find
any merit in the present application seeking leave to appeal.
In the present case, the applicant has levelled allegations of
rape against respondent No. 2 before marriage and after marriage which was
solemnized between the two on 13.2.2017. It is a case in which ACP Pooja
Dabla PW-9 admitted in her cross-examination that during investigation,
accused-respondent No. 2 was found innocent as the prosecutrix had
voluntarily married him and that she was more than 18 years of age at the
time of marriage. The said witness further deposed that accused Vinod
Kumar was challaned on re-investigation on the complaint of the applicant-
complainant which shows that the police challaned respondent No.2-Vinod
Kumar under the pressure of the applicant. The applicant in her cross-
examination stated that she had visited at least on 25 occasions regarding
the enquiry of the status of her case. It is a case in which marriage was
performed. Therefore, Section 376 IPC is not attracted. Thus, after
considering the above facts, the trial Court has rightly acquitted respondent
No. 2-accused of the charges framed against him.
While granting the leave applied for, this Court is to bear in
mind that in case of acquittal there is a double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the
Fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that every person is
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent
Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but re-inforced, re-
4 of 5
14-07-2019 06:34:19 :::
affirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. When two reasonable
conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate
Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant could not point out
any material illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal.
Nothing has been shown as to the misreading and misinterpretation of the
evidence by the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment.
Consequently, the application seeking leave to appeal is
dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.
(AJAY TEWARI) (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
July 09, 2019
Whether speaking /reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes
5 of 5
14-07-2019 06:34:19 :::