- (1.) THE appellant, challenges correctness of judgment recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, acquitting respondents no.2 and 3, of charges framed under Sections 363/366A/376 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has misconstrued the sequence of events and the evidence on record, while acquitting respondents no.2 and 3. The appellant was lured by Sukhwinder Singh, respondent no.2, after administering an intoxicant and, thereafter a marriage was stage managed on 25.03.2012 and the appellant sexually violated.
(2.) THE appellant, came to her senses on 26.03.2012, left the house of the respondent and narrated the entire incident to her father but the matter was not reported to the police in order to avoid humiliation. The offences were eventually reported to the police, on 11.06.2012 after respondent No.2 started harassing the appellant. The appellant was medically examined but report of chemical examiner was deliberately withheld from the trial Court. The so called marriage lasted for only two days, thereby, revealing that the appellant was lured by respondent no.2, abducted and sexually exploited. The trial court has erred in accepting documents, Ex.D2, Ex.D3 and the photographs, Ex.D1 to D37 and the deposition of DW1, the granthi, who claims to have performed a marriage on 25.03.2012 at Gurudwara Shri Guru Nanak Darbar, as proof of the marriage and acquitting respondent no.2. The fact that the FIR was registered on 11.06.2012, though, rape had committed between 25.03.2012 and 26.03.2012, cannot be a ground to acquit respondent no.2. It is further submitted that respondent no.2 is an auto driver, whereas the appellant belongs to a family with a much better social and economic status and, therefore, there was no reason for the appellant to have eloped and married respondent no.2.
(3.) WE have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment. The respondents have been acquitted of the charges of abduction and rape by holding that the appellant married respondent no.2 of her own free will. The facts in brief are that on 11.06.2012, the prosecutrix accompanied by her father, made a statement before ASI Dharminder Singh that she was studying in Khalsa College. Sukhwinder Grewal, son of Harvinder Singh, is an auto driver, who used to ply his auto on the route to her college. The complainant hired Sukhwinder Singh's auto on numerous occasions. Sukhwinder Singh became infatuated with her and proposed marriage. The prosecutrix rejected the proposal and, therefore, stopped hiring Sukhwinder Singh's auto. On 24.03.2012, the appellant left home for an interview. At about 11.00 AM, as she had reached, near Maid the Chaki, Sukhwinder Singh, stopped her auto and told her that he wanted to talk to her about some important matter and apologise for his mistake. Believing the bonafides of Sukhwinder Singh, the appellant sat in his auto. Sukhwinder Singh offered her halwa parshad. After eating the parshad, the appellant started feeling giddy. Sukhwinder Singh offered to drop her at her house but instead took her to his house, where his mother and sister were present. Sukhwinder Singh offered water to the appellant and told her that he will drop her after she feels better. The appellant became unconscious and does not remember what happened, thereafter, but when she regained consciousness, she found that Sukhwinder Singh lying with her in bed and indulging in a sexual act. The complainant protested but Sukhwinder Singh threatened to kill her and her family members. Sukhwinder Singh raped her and thereafter told her that he had performed a marriage with her on 25.03.2012. The complainant denied the marriage but Rajinder Kaur and Rupinder Kaur supported the statement made by Sukhwinder Singh. The complainant told the respondents that they have spoiled her life and started crying but respondent no.2 started making fun of her and threatened her that if she raises an alarm, they would spoil her family's reputation. The complainant ran away from Sukhwinder Singh's house and reached her home. The papers which she was carrying for the interview, her mobile phone and sim card along with other documents are in the house of Sukhwinder Singh. The appellant further stated that she narrated the entire incident to her parents but did not report the matter, for fear to their reputation but as the respondents are threatening the appellant, she has come to report the matter to the police. The complainant also stated that Sukhwinder Singh has forcibly got her signatures on an affidavit. The aforesaid statement led to registration of the FIR. The complainant was medically examined, swabs etc. were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory and evidence was collected, the respondents were arrested and upon preparation of the final report, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The learned trial court framed charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120B of the IPC, but as respondents no.2 and 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution has examined PW1, the prosecutrix, who has deposed in accordance with her statement made before the police, Ex.PA. PW2 Dr. Hitinder Kaur, conducted the medico legal Xray and ultrasound of the prosecutrix. She proved the X -ray report for ossification test, ultrasound pelvis report, Ex.PW2/A and PW2/B. PW3 Kuldip Singh, prepared a scaled site plan, Ex.PW3/A, of the place of occurrence, at the instance of prosecutrix. PW4 HC Satnam Singh, handed over the case property entrusted by MHC Gurjit Singh, for deposit in the office of Chemical Examiner, Kharar. PW5 ASI Dharminder Singh, the Investigating Officer, has proved the statement of the prosecutrix, Ex.PA, FIR Ex.PW5/A, site plan, Ex.PW5/B, rough site plan, Ex.PW5/C, recovery memo of swabs, Ex.PW5/D, scaled site plan, Ex.PW3/A, school certificate of prosecutrix Ex.P1 to Ex.P9, recovery memo of school certificate and mobile belonging to the prosecutrix Ex.PW5/E. PW6 MFJC Gurjit Singh, tendered his affidavit, Ex.PW6/A, regarding handing over of the case property, i.e,. swabs to HC Satnam Singh for depositing it in the office of Chemical Examiner, Kharar.;