IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Reserved: 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 MK ....Appellant.

Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents.

***

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

Argued by: Mr. Sanjeet Sood, Advocate with Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

***

Sukhvinder Kaur , J .

1. Appellant/ prosecutrix has preferred the instant appeal against judgment dated 29.03.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Amritsar, vide which respondent No.2/accused Navjit Singh has been acquitted.

2. The present FIR was registered on the basis of statement of complainant/ prosecutrix (name not disclosed to conceal her identity and hereinafter referred as prosecutrix) made before the police, alleging therein that she had been in love affair with the accused for the last one and a half years. She also stated that in the last December, he took her to Shimla for one week and thereafter, she got pregnant and accused got the pregnancy aborted and promised to solemnize marriage with her, but now he had refused for the same and had also given beatings to her. On the basis of said complaint, inquiry was conducted. Site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. Accused was arrested in the present case. Prosecutrix and accused were got medico legally examined. After completion of investigation and other necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused in the court, for judicial verdict.

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

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1-SI Rajji Bala, PW2-Dr. Arvinder Singh, PW3-Prosecutrix, PW4-SI Kuldeep Singh, PW5-Dr. Jasbir Kaur, PW6 Dr. Gagandeep Singh Digra, PW7-Dr. Kanav Grover, PW8-ASI Ranjit Singh, PW9-LCT Charanjit Kaur, PW10- ASI Gurjinder Singh, PW11-ASI Sahib Singh, PW12-ASI Shiv Kumar and PW13-Rtd. Inspector Parveen Kumari.

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 and false implication. 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 offences for which he had been charge-sheeted, vide impugned judgment dated 29.03.2025.

7. Aggrieved of the said decision, present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant challenging acquittal of the accused/ respondent No.2.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant opened up his arguments with the submission that the prosecutrix while appearing as PW3 had fully supported the prosecution story and her testimony could not be shattered despite her lengthy cross-examination. Trial Court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence on record in the right perspective. The minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case do not permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The Court should see whether the evidence of the witnesses read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. He further contended that the trial Court has failed to consider that in a case of rape, conviction can be based on uncorroborated evidence of victim of crime. Statement of prosecutrix under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. are identical and there is no apparent fabrication or exaggeration in the same. He argued that there is no evidence to show that the prosecutrix or her family was having any enmity with the accused or his family and there is no evidence to show that FIR itself was lodged malafidely. He urged that the accused developed physical relations with the prosecutri