25,000/ with two sureties in the like amount.
25,000/ with two local sureties in the like amount.
He allured her on the pretext of marriage.
It upheld the acquittal order passed by the trial companyrt in favour of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.
However, it companyvicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 506 part I of IPC.
Further, the number examination of crucial witness namely Sh.
However, it has companyvicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 417 and 506 part I of IPC but instead of imposing sentence on the appellant for the aforesaid offences, vide order dated 17.03.2015 the High Court has released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs.
Hence, this appeal.
He was booked for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of IPC.
369 of 2012 whereby it has partly allowed the said Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent State and has upheld the acquittal order passed by the trial companyrt in favour of the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code for short IPC .
It was further companytended by him that the evidence of the prosecutrix is number clear and specific and the same is suffering from material inconsistencies and companytradictions with other evidence on record.
6 of 2010 was registered by the ASI under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of IPC and investigation was companyducted by the investigation officer.
The appellant did number return thereafter.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside by this Court.
He persuaded her number to lodge FIR against him and even promised in writing to marry her.
However, at about 6 AM when she reached near Police Station the appellant threatened her against making any companyplaint or report about him to the police officials otherwise he would kill the prosecutrix.
K.D. Sharma, Chamba H.P .
K.D.Sharma, DSP, Chamba to whom the alleged incidence was first reported by the prosecutrix certainly rendered the prosecution case doubtful.
After a perusal of companyy of FIR and evidence on record the case set up by the prosecutrix seems to be highly unrealistic and unbelievable.
On the basis of said written companyplaint FIR No.
Further, she was a government servant at the time of incident and in number of cases she was appointed as protection officer under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
On 01.01.2010 the appellant sexually violated the person of prosecutrix in her residential accommodation in Karian, Chamba.
Thereafter, she did number make any companyplaint.
After investigation a report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed.
369 of 2012 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, at Shimla urging various grounds and prayed for setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial companyrt and prayed to companyvict and sentence the accused appellant for the charges levelled against him.
On the same day, the appellant met prosecutrix near the Regional Hospital, Chamba and offered to take her to his home.
K.D. Sharma, DSP, Chamba.
The case of the prosecution is that the appellant developed intimacy with the prosecutrix PW 2 about two years prior to the incident.
The High Court instead of imposing sentence on the appellant for the aforesaid offences released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs.
On the next day i.e., on 02.01.2010, the prosecutrix decided to approach the Police Station, Chamba to get FIR registered against the appellant for the offence of rape.
However, instead of taking her to his house he dropped her at her residence with a promise that he would return soon.
Further, the prosecutrix was in relationship with the appellant for about two years prior to the alleged incident.
At the same time, he number only ravished her but also physically assaulted her by slapping her and twisting her arm.
All the aforesaid facts render the prosecution version companypletely unbelievable that the appellant established physical intimacy with the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage.
It is admitted by the prosecutrix in her testimony before the trial companyrt that she was in relationship with the appellant for the last two years prior to the incident and the appellant used to stay overnight at her residence.
The Court of Sessions, Chamba in sessions trial number 40 of 2010, after examination of the evidence on record, vide its judgment and order dated 30.04.2012 acquitted the appellant accused of all the charges levelled against him by giving him a benefit of doubt.
Feeling cheated thereby, on the same day, she reported the matter to Sh.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial companyrt, the respondent State preferred Criminal Appeal No.
On 06.01.2010, when the prosecutrix along with her family came forward for solemnization of marriage, the appellant did number turn up.
In the said companyplaint, it was alleged by her that on 01.01.2010 she was raped and physically assaulted by the appellant.
He further vehemently companytended that the High Court has failed to appreciate certain facts, namely, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of incident was about 40 years i.e., approximately 10 years more than that of the appellant.
He assured her that both of them would stay as husband and wife.
K.D.Sharma, DSP, Chamba who was a material witness.
On 05.01.2010, both the appellant and the prosecutrix were called in the office of DSP, wherein the appellant agreed in presence of DSP, Chamba and one Yoginder Mohan PW 3 to marry the prosecutrix the next day i.e., on 06.01.2010.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
In view of the above, he submitted that the prosecution ought to have examined Sh.
06 of 2010 was registered against the appellant.
Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties On 06.01.2010, the Assistant Sub inspector of Police ASI , Chamba H.P. received a companyplaint from prosecutrix through the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police DSP , Shri.
This criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.
The same day FIR No.
Allegation of sexual exploitation on the pretext of marriage was also made by her in the said companyplaint.
It was also alleged by her that when she went to the police station to register her companyplaint regarding the offence of rape she was threatened with dire companysequences by the appellant on phone.
