IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Reserved: 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025 PXXXXX DXXX ....Applicant.

Versus Lalit Kumar and another ...Respondents.

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR .......

Present: Mr. Saksham Malhotra, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

for the applicant.

***

Sukhvinder Kaur , J .

1. Applicant/ prosecutrix has preferred the instant application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against judgment dated 27.09.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court for Heinous Crimes Against Women and Children), Yamnua Nagar at Jagadhari, vide which respondent No.1 has been acquitted of offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC.

2. The present FIR was got registered by the prosecutrix on the allegations that on 24.06.2017, she was alone at her house. At about 2.00 P.M. she had gone outside for collecting wooden sticks. Accused Lalit Kumar was standing there, who caught hold her and forcibly took her towards sugar cane fields. She cried for help, but accused gagged her mouth with dupatta and thereafter, tore her clothes and committed rape upon her. She fell unconscious and in the meantime accused fled from there. After some time, when she regained consciousness, she went to her house. When in the evening her husband came, she narrated the entire incident to him. During investigation, site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was got recorded and she was medico legally examined. Accused was arrested and was got medico legally examined and after completion of other investigation, challan against the accused person was presented in the court, for trial.

3. After finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1, PW2 Head Constable Babita, PW3 Dr. Anil Tyagi, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, PW4 Dr. Chavi Mehta, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, PW5 Head Constable Gurcharan Singh, PW6 Constable Parveen Kumar, PW7 Sunil Kumar, Patwari, PW8 Sub Inspector Shish Pal, PW9 Inspector Sheelawanti.

5. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which, all incriminating evidence was put to him, which he denied and pleaded innocence. In his defence evidence, the accused examined DW1 Anil Sharma, DW2 Paras Soni, Nodal Officer, Vodafone, Mobile Services Limited, Peeragarhi, New Delhi and accused examined himself as DW3 and also tendered into evidence photos Ex.D1 to D3, CAF Ex.D4, CDR Ex.D5, Tower location chart Ex.D6, certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.D7, photocopy Ex.DW3/A, copy of site plan Ex.DX and copy of compromise Mark DY.

6. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial Court found the same to be woefully insufficient to convict the accused who was accordingly acquitted of the offence for which he had been charge-sheeted, vide impugned judgment dated 27.09.2018.

7. Aggrieved of the said decision, present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant challenging acquittal of the accused/ respondent No.1.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the statement of the complainant/ prosecutrix inspires confidence and her testimony was enough to prove the charge against the accused. Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment without due application of mind while ignoring the material evidence on record. Learned trial Court did not take into consideration the testimony of PW4 Dr. Chavi Mehta, wherein she deposed that possibility of sexual assault with the prosecutrix cannot be ruled out. There are no such contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which go to the roots of the prosecution case. Lear