State of Himachal Pradesh vs Rahul Sharma

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, JJ
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Rahul Sharma – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Additional Advocates General, and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Ms. Chetna Thapar, Advocate, vice Mr. Saurav Rattan, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 02.08.2014, passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 08-ST/7 of 2014, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted from the charges under Sections 363 , 366, 506, 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’).

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under:

2(a). The minor victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) was living with her parents at village Majra and she received a call from the accused on the mobile phone of her brother and the accused disclosed that he loved her and wanted to marry her. The prosecutrix refused to marry the accused owing to different religion. Subsequently, on 27.10.2013 the accused sent a girl with muffled face, who gave a mobile phone to the prosecutrix and on 29.10.2013, on that mobile phone, the accused directed the prosecutrix to accompany him. On 29.10.2013 again a girl with muffled face came to the hous