Himachal Pradesh High Court
CR.A/564/2008 of STATE Vs YOG RAJ on 26 December 2008
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.564 of 2008 Date of decision 26.12.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Yog Raj Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Cr.A.No.564 of 2008
Date of decision 26.12.2008
State of H.P. Appellant
Versus
Yog Raj
Respondent
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1]
For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General.
For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
Per Surjit Singh, J (Oral )
Cr.M P (M) No. 1105/2008
State has sought leave against the judgment of the Sessions court dated 12.6.2008, whereby respondent who was tried for the offences Under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C, has been acquitted. Trial court after recording evidence, adduced by the prosecution and analyzing the same, has come to the conclusion that the prosecutrix appears to have gone with the respondent voluntarily, without being induced or allured by him.
Relevant facts are as follows. On 24.7.2003, prosecutrix , according to her father, Dharam Dass, PW-3, left the house for nearby forest to fetch grass but did not return. Efforts were made to trace her out. Ultimately it was found that prosecutrix was with the respondent. Matter was reported to the police. Police allegedly recovered the prosecutrix from the house of the respondent.
During the course of trial, though the father of the prosecutrix, PW-3 Dharam Dass, stated that the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of the respondent and that on the fateful day she had gone to the nearby forest to fetch grass, prosecutrix herself stated that on the relevant date, she was going to the house of her aunt when the respondent met her on the way and took her to his own aunt’s house and from there to his house on the next following day and finally he and his father took her to Mandi to get their marriage solemnized, but when it was noticed at Mandi that both of them were underage for marriage, the official concerned refused to enter their marriage and in the meanwhile her father accompanied by police officials reached Mandi and took her back to her house.
The aforesaid contradictions in the statements of the father of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix herself, probabilize the defence plea that the prosecutrix and respondent were known to each other before the occurrence and the prosecutrix voluntarily went with the respondent to solemnize marriage with her. In view of the above stated position, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal to the State. Hence, application is dismissed.
Cr. Appeal No. 564 of 2008
In view of the refusal of leave to appeal, no order is required to be passed. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
( Surjit Singh ), J.