212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16) Date of decision: 08.07.2025 Sxxxx ...Appellant Vs.

Rajesh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:3)

(cid:24)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:12)titi(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:9)

(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:26)

DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J.

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.05.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Bhiwani in a case bearing FIR No. 12 dated 23.01.2019 registered at Police Station Women Bhiwani under Sections 323, 34, 376(3) and 506 of IPC, Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, where respondent Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted.

2. The facts in brief emanating from the pleadings of the present appeal are that the appellant/complainant (hereinafter to be referred as prosecutrix) got her statement recorded, which led to registration of the present FIR alleging therein that on 20.01.2019 at about 3.30 p.m. when she was returning from her field after taking fodder, her co-villager, namely, Rajesh (respondent No.1) forcibly dragged her in mustard field and committed rape upon her. Due to fear she did not disclose anything on the day of the incident, but, on the next day i.e., 21.01.2019 at about 7.30 a.m. when respondent No.1 came to her house, she got frightened and revealed everything to her mother. Thereafter, mother of prosecutrix enquired from accused/respondent No.1, who called his father, namely, Chanderpal (respondent No.2), who abused and quarreled with father of prosecutrix at their home and also extended threats to their family. On these allegations, present FIR was registered.

3. On registration of the said FIR, investigation was carried out and on completion of the same, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Court. Finding a prima facie case under Sections 376, 323 and 506 IPC, Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3 of SC/ST Act, 1989 was registered against respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 (father of the respondent No.1) was charged for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. Charges were framed under the aforementioned sections against both accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses, including Virender Singh DSP as PW 1; Dr.Monika as PW-2, who conducted the medicolegal examination; SI Neelam as PW-3, who prepared final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., L/ASI Rekha as PW-4, ESI Neelam as PW-5, HC Yogender as PW-6, Sushil Kumar, Data Entry Operator, Board of School Education Haryana as PW-7, Devender Singh, Patwari as PW-8, SI Dharmali as PW-9, L/HC Sunita as PW-10, Vishal Kumar, Clerk from the office of Naib Tehsildar as PW-11, Roshal Lal, Member, Child Welfare Committee, Bhiwani as PW-12, Child victim as PW-13, Father of the child victim as PW-14, Dr. Sonia, who medico legally examined accused-Rajesh as PW-15 and DSP Jagat Singh as PW-16. All the exhibits, including MLR, were tendered in evidence.

5. Statements of both the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the present case. No witness was examined in their defence.

6. The trial court, after considering the material available on record, acquitted the accused/respondents by holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove their case again