High Court quashed abetment proceedings on victim-husband compromise after main rapist accused died, as conviction remote, parties harmonious, invoking Section 482 CrPC sparingly for non-compoundable offences to secure justice.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal appeal, lays challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 10.7.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (Sarkaghat Court), H.P., in session trial No. 33/2014 under Sections 376 (2) N, 342 and 109 of IPC, whereby respondent accused came to be acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 342 and 109 of .

2. In nutshell case of the prosecution is that on 18.3.2014, victim-prosecutrix along with her mother Kamli Devi submitted one application to the SHO PS Sarkaghat, alleging therein that on 7.3.2014, her brother in law and his wife Kaushalya Devi came to her house. She alleged that her brother in law took her to room and her husband locked the door from outside and thereafter, brother in law raped her repeatedly. She also alleged that though afore incident was made known to husband and other family members, but no action was taken against brother in law. In the afore background, FIR Ext.PW13/A, came to be lodged against the person namely Ranjeet Singh and Ramesh Chand, who are brother in law and husband of victim respectively.

3. Police after completion of investigation presented challan in the competent court of law, which after being satisfied that prima- facie case exists against the accused Ranjeet Singh framed charges against him under Section 376 (N) and 342 of IPC, whereas husband of victim-prosecutrix was charged under Section 109 of to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses, whereas accused in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, denied the case of the prosecution in toto and led the evidence in defense. On the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, learned trial Court acquitted the accused. In the afore background, appellant-State has approached this Court in the appeal, praying therein for conviction of accused named in the FIR after setting aside judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court.

5. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that during pendency of the present appeal, main accused Ranjeet Singh, who was charged under Section 376(2)N of IPC has expired, as a result of which present appeal stands abated against him.

6. Victim-prosecutrix has also compromised the offence with her husband, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. Learned counsel for the respondent apprised this Court that for the last 7-8 years, victim-prosecutrix and respondent No.2, who otherwise happen to be husband and wife are living together.

7. This Court with a view to ascertain correctness of the aforesaid submission made by respondent No.2, deemed it necessary to cause presence of victim-prosecutrix as well as Investigating Officer.

8. Pursuant to order dated 7.3.2026, victim-prosecutrix has come present in person, who has been identified by Insp. Rajneesh Thakur. Afore officer also admitted factum with regard to compromise arrived inter-se parties. He stated that for the last 7-8 years, victim- prosecutrix and respondent No.2 have been living together peacefully and there is no complaint against the respondent-accused Ramesh Chand.

9. Victim-prosecutrix on oath stated before this Court that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with her husband, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. She stated that FIR on the basis of which criminal proceedings came to be initiated against the