1. In this cr. appeal filed by the complainant, the complainant is challenging the validity of the judgment dated 24.4.2014 whereby the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge, Abu Road, acquitted the respondent no.2 from the charges levelled against him.
2. As per the facts of the case on 26.7.2012 at 5.30 pm, the missing report (Ex.P/1) was submitted by the appellant at Police Station, Mount Abu
in which it was specifically stated that complainant''s wife Smt. Roshani Devi left the house in the night at 1.30 pm on 24.7.2012 and she is not
traceable.
3. The missing report was registered at Police Station, Mount Abu. Thereafter on 7.9.2012 at 4.00 pm the complainant filed a written complaint
(Ex.P/2) at Police Station Mount Abu in which the allegations were levelled by him that he has received mobile call from his wife Roshani Devi that
respondent Het Ram after giving threat forcibly take her against her wishes to get married with her. Certain other allegations were also levelled as
per the information by the complainant. Upon aforesaid written report FIR no.18/2012 was registered against the respondent under Section 342,
363 and 367 IPC in which after investigation, the respondent Het Ram was arrested and statements of prosecutrix were recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. After completing investigation, challan was filed against the respondent Het Ram in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mount Abu from where the case was committed for trial to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Abu Road.
4. The learned trial court after framing charge granted an opportunity to lead evidence. From the prosecution side, statements of 9 witnesses were
recorded including statements of PW-3 Roshani Devi. Thereafter, the statements of respondent Het Ram were recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and finally the matter was heard and decided by the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 24.4.2014 whereby the respondent
is acquitted from the charge levelled against him.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding given by the learned trial court is totally erroneous because as per the statements of
prosecutrix offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. The learned trial court completely ignored the statements of prosecutrix so as to acquit the
respondent, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we have perused the finding given by the learned trial court. The learned trial court observed
in the order that the prosecutrix is more than 41 years of age and before the present incident she willingly went with the respondent for which DB
Habeas Corpus Petition No.3000/2012 was filed by the complainant in which it was observed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order
dated 16.4.2012 that prosecutrix Smt. Roshan Devi went along-with the respondent as per her own will. The said order was placed on record as
Ex.D/1, which reads as under:
Alleged Alleged detenue Smt. Roshan Devi who is produced before the Court through Government Advocate stated that she left her house
voluntarily and she was not abducted by Het Ram @ Chet Ram. She also desires to stay with her husband Shri Sawai Singh.
In view of the statement so given, we are not inclined to proceed further with the habeas corpus petition, accordingly the habeas corpus
petition stands disposed off. Smt. Roshan Devi is at liberty to move as per her own will and wish.
7. Upon perusal of the above order it is abundantly clear that prosecutrix left the house at her own earlier, therefore, the learned trial court
disbelieved the statement of prosecutrix for the reason that from 24.7.2012 to 4.9.2012 prosecutrix lived with the respondent and thereafter, a
concocted and false story is knitted.
8. In our view, the finding arrived at by the learned trial court does not require any interference because it is an admitted position of the case that
prosecutrix earlier left the house and went along-with the respondent and, thereafter, again she left the house at her own will with the respondent,
but later on, gave telephone information to his son with regard to incident.
9. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that finding arrived at by the learned trial court for acquittal does not suffer from any illegality or
perversity.
10. Hence, this cr. appeal is hereby dismissed.
