IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

210 Date of decision: September 09, 2025 BXXX ...Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present: Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. H.S. Deol, Sr. DAG, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Hoshiarpur in case FIR No.40 dated 02.03.2023 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur, whereby the accused-respondent No.2 was acquitted of charges framed against him.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Balwinder Kaur (PW1) lodged a written complaint on 02.03.2023 at Police Station Mahilpur, alleging that her daughter (hereinafter referred to as the ‘prosecutrix’), aged about 20 years, and stated to be mentally challenged, had been subjected to repeated acts of rape by the accused. It was alleged that respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) would entice the prosecutrix into the fields under the pretext of cutting fodder, and by threatening to kill her younger brother, would forcibly commit sexual intercourse upon her.

3. Noticing abnormal changes in the health of her daughter, the complainant got her examined at Civil Hospital, Mahilpur. An ultrasound revealed that the prosecutrix was about 7 months pregnant. Upon persistent questioning, the prosecutrix disclosed that it was the accused, who had violated her person. On this basis, FIR in question was registered.

4. The prosecutrix delivered a female child on 07.05.2023. DNA samples of the child, the prosecutrix and the accused were collected. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded before the learned JMIC, Garhshankar, wherein she implicated the accused.

5. Her mental capacity was assessed. PW6 Chitra Chaudhary, Clinical Psychologist opined the IQ of the prosecutrix to be 72 (borderline intellectual functioning), though she was found capable of giving rational answers. PW12 Sh. Jagmeet Singh, JMIC, also clarified that the statement of the prosecutrix was voluntary and made with sufficient understanding.

6. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, including the complainant and her husband who appeared as PW1 and P2 respectively, the prosecutrix (PW4), Doctors, Clinical Psychologist and the JMIC, before whom the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all allegations, claimed false implication, and adduced defence evidence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the accused despite cogent and consistent evidence. It was urged that the prosecutrix, while appearing as PW4, consistently implicated the accused both in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW4/A), and even during trial. Being a young woman of 20 years with borderline intellectual functioning, she was highly vulnerable to exploitation. Therefore, her testimony should have been assessed with sensitivity, and minor discrepancies attributable to her mental limitations should not have been treated as fatal by the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused.

8. It was further argued that the pregnancy of the prosecutrix and subsequent delivery of her child on 07.05.2023 lent strong corroboration to her account. The parents of the prosecutrix (PW1 Balwinder Kaur and PW2 Gurinder Singh) also gave a consistent narrative that she disclosed the sexual abuse when her pregnancy was detected. The testimony, when read with the own statement of the prosecutrix, clearly forms a coherent chain pointing to the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel also asserted that the learned trial Court had placed undue reliance on the DNA report, which exc