- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 6.10.2005 in Criminal Revision No. 2277 of 2004 and order dated 21.10.2005 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 57395 of 2005 in Criminal Revision No. 2277 of 2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The present appellant had been charged under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter being referred to as "the IPC ") that she had prepared the MLR in a case of rape of two minor girls to help the accused persons. To prove that charge, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and only one of them Jai Prakash PW 9 supported the prosecution case only to the extent that on the relevant date on 2. 4.1992, he had seen the elder brother of the accused talking to the appellant who was the Doctor and prepared the MLR. His only evidence had been as under: "I saw Bhim Singh talking to Doctor Dipti Bhardwaj and saw him coming out with her and did not hear their talks. "
(2.) BhimSingh is the elder brother of one of the accused and it may also be pertinent to mention that the accused persons have already been convicted under Section 376, IPC on the basis of the report prepared by other two doctors. This very fact that this witness PW 9 had seen the appellant coming out with Bhim Singh had not been put to her while her statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded and that is why the matter is pending since 1992 and period of 20 years has already lapsed. The matter had been remanded to put these questions to her. However, the question which has been raised before this Court as to whether there is any incriminating circumstance even if the statement of Bhim Singh PW 9 is accepted to be true. Basically it is mensrea, an intention, to help the accused so that they may escape the liability to rape. PW 9. himself had not made any statement that there had been any negotiation or he had heard any conversation between them rather he had denied to have heard anything between them. In such circumstances, it would be an exercise in futility to proceed with the trial. There is nothing on record to meet the requirements under Section 218, IPC as it is necessary to establish that the public servant had acted with the intention to save the accused. In the absence of basic ingredient being proven, no fruitful purpose would be served to sustain the order of remand. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed.;