IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Reserved: 02.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 05.12.2025.

SXXXXX ....Applicant.

Versus Amit Verma ...Respondent.

***

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

Present: Ms. Suman Kumari, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)

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 31.07.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which respondent has been acquitted of offences punishable under Sections

376(2) (n) and 506 of IPC.

2. The factual scenario, as per prosecution version is that on 14.02.2017, prosecutrix got recorded her statement with the police alleging therein that she had done catering work with the accused and he had kept the documents of her daughter with him. On 08.11.2016 at about 12.10 P.M., the accused after blackmailing, committed wrong act with her and whenever she tried to maintain distance from the accused, he threatened to defame her and her daughter and to kill her husband and had again committed wrong act with her. The accused had also thrown stones in her house two days prior to moving of the complaint. As per prosecutrix, on the date of making complaint, accused came to her house, misbehaved with her and threatened to kill her. On the basis of the said statement present FIR was registered. Prosecutrix was got medico legally examined from B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. Accused was arrested, who suffered disclosure statement and demarcated the place of occurrence. Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. Accused was also got medico legally examined. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded 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 Sections 376(2)(n) and506 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW1, PW2 Dr. Aparna Gupta, PW3 Sanchita, PW4 ASI Mukesh Kumari, PW5 Dr. Manish Dayal, PW6 Lady Constable Kavita and PW7 ASI Sarwan Kumar, Draftsman.

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. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused.

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 31.07.2018.

7. Aggrieved of the said decision, present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant challenging acquittal of the accused/ respondent.

8. After giving recap to the factual matrix of the case, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecutrix while appearing as PW1, wherein she provided all the details regarding commission of offence by the respondent from time to time. As the offence of rape had taken place multiple times, so the prosecutrix was not able to recall the exact dates and locations where respondent/ accused had committed rape upon her. Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the defence version that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. There was no reason with her to level false allegations against the accused and absence of any such reason indicates towards the genuineness of the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix. Trial Court did not take into account that during interrogation respondent/ accused suffered disclosure statement and got demarcated the place of occurrence. The delay in lodging of the FIR has been properly explained and from the version of the pro