STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MOHAMMAD JAHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2001, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) (f) read with Sections 511 and 506 IPC. The prosecutrix is a minor girl aged about ten years. Case of the prosecution is that she alongwith her aunt, Jitni Kumari, who was aged only about eight years, had been sent by the mother of the prosecutrix to village Jalgran near Rakkar colony to fetch clothes from a tailor, which had been given for stitching. When the prosecutrix and Jitni Kumari were returning from the tailor, they crossed the shop of PW -5, Gurmit Singh and thereafter reached near a culvert over a small rivulet. At this place, the accused met them and he dragged the prosecutrix towards the small rivulet. He then removed her frock and trousers. He also removed his own pant and lay over the prosecutrix. In the meanwhile, Jitni Kumari ran to the shop of Gurmit Singh and informed him about this occurrence. Thereafter, Gurmit Singh and another person came to the spot and on seeing them, the accused ran way. Thereafter, the mother of the prosecutrix was also called. Investigation was carried out and the accused was charged for having committed the offences aforesaid and after trial, he has been acquitted. Hence, this appeal by the State.

(2.) BOTH , the prosecutrix and the main witness, are small children. We have gone through their evidence and we find that the statement of the prosecutrix and Jitni Kumari do not inspire confidence. The prosecutrix has repeated what has been stated in the First Information Report. According to her, when PW -5, Gurmit Singh and one more person came there, then the accused wanted to run away, but was caught hold of by Gurmit Singh. It is important to note that whereas Gurmit Singh states that he had never visited jhungi (hutment) of the parents of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix states that Gurmit Singh used to frequently visit their jhungi. In cross -examination, the prosecutrix also stated that when she reached the shop of PW -5, Gurmit Singh, the accused was already sitting there, though later she corrected her version by self -stating that the accused met her on the way. She also admitted a suggestion that Gurmit Singh had asked her to make a charge of attempt of rape against the accused. She has also stated that outside the court room, the police officials had explained to her what statement has to be made in the Court. Thus, in these circumstances, it would be highly imprudent to rely upon the statement of the child prosecutrix.

(3.) AS far as PW -5, Gurmit Singh, is concerned, his statement is that after he was informed by Jitni Kumari about the incident, he and Madan Lal went towards the culvert and called from the road side and thereafter, both the accused and the prosecutrix came from the rivulet side and the prosecutrix was putting on her salwar and the accused was wearing his pant. This version is totally different from that of the prosecutrix. In view of the highly unreliable evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We find no reason to interfere in this judgment of acquittal. The appeal is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds discharged.