In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004

Reserved On: 15.09.2026

Pronounced On: 21.09.2026

Rambir

... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present:Ms. Mehak Sawhney, Advocate

for the appellant(s).

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General,

Haryana, for the respondent.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. This is appeal against conviction. By virtue of judgment dated

21.01.2004, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned judgment’, the

appellant, hereinafter being referred to as ‘convict’ only, has been held guilty

for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 366 & 376 of ‘the

Indian Penal Code, 1860’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’. Resultantly

by virtue of order on the quantum of sentence, dated 23.01.2004, hereinafter

being referred to as ‘impugned order’, the appellant has been sentenced to

undergo imprisonment, as detailed below, by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge (Fast Track Court), hereinafter being referred to as ‘Trial Court’ only.

Offence under

Section

Sentence

366 of IPCRigorous imprisonment for a period of

five years and to pay a fine of ₹500/- and

in default thereof to further undergo

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 2

Offence under

Section

Sentence

rigorous imprisonment for a period of

three months.

376 of IPCRigorous imprisonment for a period of

seven years and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/-

and in default thereof to further undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of six

months.

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Aggrieved of the above-mentioned impugned judgment of

conviction and order on quantum of sentence, the present appeal has been

preferred.

4. The above-mentioned impugned judgment of conviction and

order on quantum of sentence came pursuant to a trial for the commission of

offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of IPC vide FIR No. 297

dated 09.05.2001, Police Station Sadar Gurgaon, District Gurgaon, Haryana.

The above-mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Parkashbir

Yadav’, hereinafter after being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. As per case

set out by the prosecution the above named complainant approached the

police in Police Station Sadar Gurgaon and filed a compliant (Ex.PD)

wherein he alleged that he was employed in ‘New Delhi Municipal

Corporation’, and that as usual his daughter, namely (XXX), hereinafter

being referred to as ‘Prosecutrix’ only, had left home in the morning on

07.05.2001 for CMC training. According to complainant ‘Rambir Yadav’,

the appellant herein, had enticed his daughter and took her away to some

unknown place. The above named complainant had requested for tracing out

of his daughter and action be taken against the offender, i.e. the appellant.

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 3

5. It was the case of the prosecution that in view of above-

mentioned complaint (Ex.PD) formal FIR of this case was lodged for the

commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of IPC.

As per prosecution during the course of investigation, on 05.06.2001 the

daughter of complainant, hereinafter being referred to as ‘prosecutrix’ only,

was recovered from the custody of appellant at Dhaula Kuan, Delhi. It was

further alleged by the prosecution that once the prosecutrix was recovered

from the custody of appellant necessary formalities with regard to her

medical examination and recording of her statement under Section 164 of

‘Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973’, hereinafter being referred to as

“Cr.P.C.’ only, were completed. As per prosecution the appellant was

formally arrested and further formalities of investigation, i.e. collection of

relevant evidence was undertaken by the Investigating Officer. Once the

investigation was complete the appellant was sent to the Court to face trial

for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of

IPC.

6. To discharge its burden, of proving charges against the

appellant, the prosecution, in the instant case, had relied upon oral and

documentary evidence, both. The documents proved, and marked with

exhibits, by the prosecution, were:-

Ex.PA-Disclosure Statement of Rambir (the

appellant)

Ex.PB-Copy of demarcation memo of place

where Rambir kept the prosecutrix

Ex.PC-Copy of statement of prosecutrix,

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

Ex.PC/2-Application moved by the Investigating

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 4

Officer for recording of statement of

prosecutrix under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C.

Ex.PC/I-Order dated 14.06.2001, passed by the

learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate on the application for

recording the statement of the

prosecutrix under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C.

Ex.PD-Complaint moved before the police by

the complainant

Ex.PD/I Endorsement, recorded by the

Inspector on the complaint moved by

the complainant

Ex.PE-Memo with regard to handing over the

custody of prosecutrix to her father

Ex.PF-Report of Forensic Science Laboratory,

Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal

Ex.PG-Medicolegal Report of accused

Ex.PH-Rough site plan of the place where the

prosecutrix was kept by accused

Ex.PJ-Copy of First Information Report (FIR)

Ex.PJ/1-Endorsement regarding registration of

FIR on the complaint

Ex.PK -Medicolegal Report of the prosecutrix

Ex.PK/1

to

Ex.PK/4

-Ultrasound Reports of the prosecutrix

Ex.PL-Application moved by the Investigating

Officer with the regard to medical

examination of the accused.

Ex.PL/1 -Memo with regard to a parcel

containing clothes of the accused

7. To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned

documentary evidence, as many as 14 witnesses were examined by the

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 5

prosecution. They were:-

PW.1 -HC Babu Ram

PW.2 -Krishan Kumar, UGC

PW.3 -HC Mukh Ram Singh

PW.4 -The Prosecutrix

PW.5 -Parkash Vir Yadav, the Complainant

PW.6 -HC Ram Tirath

PW.7 -Dr. R.K.Sachdeva, Medical Officer,

General Hospital, Gurgaon

PW.8 -ASI Raj Singh, P.P. Palam Vihar

PW.9 -Inspector Babu Lal, DI, CID, Narnaul

PW10.-Inspector Randhir Singh, SHO NIT

Faridabad

PW.11-Dr. Usha Rani, Senior Resident,

Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi

PW.12-ASI Budh Ram

PW.13-SI Shakuntla, P.S. City Gurgaon

PW.14-Sh. J.R.Duggal, Additional CJM,

Gurgaon

8. Once the prosecution evidence was over, the learned trial Court

completed all the essential formalities, enshrined under Section 313 CrPC.

Thereafter, opportunity to lead defence evidence was afforded to the

appellant. In his defence evidence, the appellant had not examined any

witness.

9. When the evidence of both the parties was complete, the

learned Trial Court gave opportunity to the learned Public Prosecutor and

the learned counsel for the appellant, to address arguments. Thereafter, a

judgment of conviction, against the appellant, was pronounced and,

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 6

accordingly, the sentence, detailed hereinabove, was awarded to the

appellant.

10. Heard.

11. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant

that the impugned judgment is perverse and unsustainable in view of the fact

that that settled principle of criminal jurisprudence had been ignored by the

learned Trial Court. According to learned counsel for the appellant merely

on the basis of assumptions and presumptions it was observed by the learned

Trial Court that charges for the commission of offence punishable under

Sections 366 & 376 of IPC had been proved, whereas the evidence adduced

by the prosecution was grossly inadequate, inconsistent and contradictory on

material parts and therefore, the same was not sufficient to discharge the

burden of prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellant has also

contended that the learned Trial Court failed to look into the fact that that the

story set-out by the prosecution was unnatural and unable to convince a

prudent mind.

12. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the

appellant that merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises a false story,

set-out by the prosecution with regard to abduction and rape of the

prosecutrix, had been believed by the learned Trial Court. As per learned

counsel for the appellant if the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence

which prescribes that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond

the shadow of all reasonable doubts would have been followed by the

learned Trial Court, in any eventuality the impugned judgment of conviction

could not have been recorded.

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 7

13. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that

in the present case the first and foremost fact to be taken into consideration

was that as per complaint filed by the father of the prosecutrix, she left home

in the morning on 07.05.2001, but the matter was reported to the police

after two days, i.e. in the afternoon on 09.05.2001 and thus, there was an

unexplained delay of two days in reporting the matter to the police.

According to learned counsel for the appellant another relevant factor to be

taken into consideration was that, that as per prosecution story the

prosecutrix was recovered by the police from the custody of appellant on

05.06.2001 and on next date, i.e. 06.06.2001 her medical examination was

conducted, but the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was

recorded on 14.06.2001. While deprecating the above-mentioned approach

of the Investigating Agency it has been contended by the learned counsel for

the appellant that the above-mentioned delay in recording the statement of

prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was because during the above-

mentioned period a false story was cooked-up and the prosecutrix, which

had voluntarily eloped with the appellant, was forced to give a false

statement against the appellant.

14. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has

also contended that in the present case there is no dispute qua the fact that at

the time of incident the prosecutrix was major, i.e. above the age of 21, and

that the circumstances in itself showed that she went with the appellant with

her free will and was not abducted forcibly. To support of his above-

mentioned claim the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the

conduct of the prosecutrix, who travelled extensively through public

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 8

transport vehicles, from Gurgaon to Delhi, Delhi to Dehradun, Dehradun to

Ludhiana and Ludhiana to Delhi. As per learned counsel for the appellant

while travelling through public transport and visiting public places, for

boarding buses the prosecutrix had ample opportunities to raise alarm for

help, and get herself released, but she never made any such effort. According

to learned counsel for the appellant the above-mentioned conduct of the

prosecutrix made it apparently clear that she was a consenting party.

15. Another component with regard to above-mentioned plea,

highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that at time of her

medical examination on 08.06.2001 it was found that the prosecutrix was

pregnant having seven weeks & four days old fetus. As per learned counsel

for the appellant since the prosecutrix was abducted on 07.05.2001 and

recovered on 05.06.2001, at the most the age of her fetus could have been

four weeks old, but the presence of more than seven weeks old fetus showed

that the prosecutrix was in physical relationship with the appellant much

prior to the incident dated 07.05.2001.

16. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant

that a false story has been set out by the prosecutrix (PW.4), who had

testified that she was enticed by the appellant on the pretext of arranging job

for her. While referring to the testimony of PW.5, the father of prosecutrix,

it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the

prosecutrix was already in job and therefore, the story with regard to

allurement on the ground of arranging job for her was nothing but an

absolute lie.

17. In view of above-mentioned grounds, the learned counsel for

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 9

the appellant has contended that instant case was apparently a case of

elopement with free will by a major girl, with the appellant, and that she had

sexual intercourse with the appellant with free will, i.e. without any threat,

pressure, coercion of use of force, and therefore, the allegations with regard

to commission of offence punishable under Section s 366 & 376 of IPC were

false. As per learned counsel for the appellant the learned Trial Court,

merely on the basis of whims and fancies, returned the judgment of

conviction. which needs interference of appellate jurisdiction of this Court.

18. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the

appellant has placed reliance upon the principles of law laid down, by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the following cases:-

i)‘State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin alias Lalla’ [Criminal

Appeal No. 94 of 2025, decided on 07.01.2026]

ii)‘Shiv Pratap Singh Rana v. State of Madhya Pradesh

and Another’ [Criminal Appeal No. 1552 of 2023,

decided on 08.07.2024]

19. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has

also referred to the observations recorded by this court in the following

cases:-

a)‘Tej Parkash and Others v. State of Punjab’ 2016(4)

RCR (Criminal) 983

b)‘Subeg Singh v. State of Punjab’ 2015(1) RCR

(Criminal) 636

c)‘Sagar Kumarv. State of Haryana’ 2011(1) RCR

(Criminal) 620

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 10

20. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-

mentioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned State counsel

that instant case is an open and shut case, wherein the plea with regard to

abduction and rape of the prosecutrix, by the appellant, was successfully

proved by the prosecution beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts.

According to the learned State counsel in the present case the prosecutrix

herself had appeared in the witness-box as PW.4 and supported the

prosecution version with regard to the fact that she was forcibly abducted by

the appellant and subjected to sexual intercourse against her will. As per

learned State counsel it is settled principle of law that great sanctity is

attached to the testimony of prosecutrix unless impeached in material

particulars. The learned State counsel has further contended that in the

present case the prosecutrix had successfully faced the test of cross-

examination and the credibility of her testimony could not be impeached

despite thorough & probing cross-examination.

21. In addition to above, the learned State counsel has also

contended that other supporting evidence also proved each and every

ingredient meant for proving of charge for the offence under Sections 366 &

376 of IPC. In this regard, the learned State counsel has referred to the

testimony of complainant, examined as PW.5, who thoroughly supported the

prosecution case. As per the learned State counsel the above-mentioned oral

evidence comprising of the testimony of prosecutrix and the complainant

was further supported by the independent evidence, i.e. the medical

evidence comprising of the testimony of Medical Officers, i.e.

Dr.R.K.Sachdeva, the PW.7 and Dr.Usha Rani, PW.11.

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 11

22. The learned State counsel has further contended that the

recovery of prosecutrix from the custody of appellant after four weeks of the

incident further supported the prosecution case qua the fact that the

prosecutrix was forcibly taken out of the lawful custody of her parents,

without their consent by the appellant. While defending the impugned

judgment of conviction the learned State counsel has contended that on

proper appreciation of evidence a right conclusion was drawn by the

learned Trial Court, and therefore, there is no scope for indulgence or

interference in the above-mentioned verdict of the learned Trial Court.

According to learned State counsel the instant appeal has no merits and

deserves dismissal.

23. The record has been perused carefully,.

24. As far as the instant case is concerned at the very outset it is

relevant to mention here that in the present case there is no dispute qua

several facts. Such facts may be summarised as under:-

I)that the proseuctrix is daughter of the complainant;

II) that in the complaint (Ex.PD) dated 09.05.2001 the

complainant had reported that his daughter, i.e. the

prosecutrix, was missing since 07.05.2001;

III)that at the time of incident, the age of the prosecutrix was

about 21 years;

IV)that as per medical evidence the prosecutrix was

subjected to sexual intercourse before her recovery from

the custody of appellant on 05.06.2001; and

V)that the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 12

Cr.P.C. was recorded on 14.06.2001.

25. In the light of above-mentioned admitted facts now it has to be

determined as to whether the learned Trial Court rightly recorded the

findings of conviction against the appellant or not.

26. With regard to instant case as set-out by the prosecution, the

first and foremost component supposed to be proved by the prosecution was

that the prosecutrix was forcibly taken away (abducted) by the appellant, and

that against her will she was subjected to sexual intercourse. With regard to

above-mentioned allegation the star witness examined by the prosecution

was the prosecutrix herself. She was examined as PW.4.

27. In her examination-in-chief the PW.4 had duly supported the

prosecution case with regard to above-mentioned allegations. As per PW.4

she was enticed by the appellant by projecting that he was having relations

with some person who would help her in getting the job. As per PW.4 first

of all, she was taken to Udhyog Vihar Area and then in the evening to a

lonely area where she was raped. The PW.4 in her examination-in-chief

also supported the claim of the prosecution that she got her statement

recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

The above-mentioned statement was proved by the PW.4 as Ex.P3.

28. However, in her cross-examination the PW.4 deposed that

initially when she accompanied the appellant no threat to her was given by

the appellant. The PW.4 had admitted that she was taken by the appellant to

Dehradun on 07.05.2001 and thereafter to Ludhiana, and that before the

above-mentioned incident she was never had sexual intercourse with the

appellant. The PW.4 had categorically admitted that throughout her journey

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 13

she travelled with the appellant in public transport, i.e. bus, and that at

Ludhiana she had stayed with the appellant in the house of relative of

appellant. As per deposition of PW.4, in the building where she stayed with

the appellant numerous persons were residing.

29. In her cross-examination the PW.4 had given an explanation

with regard to a query that she did not raise hue and cry for her rescue, while

visiting public places and travelling in public transport vehicles. Qua the

above-mentioned aspect the PW.4 had deposed that the appellant forcibly

used to administer intoxicating tablets to her and, therefore, she was not

capable of raising hue and cry. As per the PW.4 from 07.05.2001, when she

was abducted by the appellant, till 05.06.2001, when she was recovered from

the custody of appellant, she continued to wear the same clothes, and that

during her custody she was subjected to beatings on three/four occasions by

the appellant. However, as per PW.4 after recovery from the custody of

appellant her marriage was solemnised. Another relevant fact deposed by the

PW.4 was that at the time of incident she was jobless.

30. To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned

testimony of PW.4, the prosecution had examined the complainant, as PW.5.

In his examination-in-chief, the PW.5 had thoroughly supported the

prosecution case. However, in his cross-examination the PW.5 admitted that

the appellant had visited his house on one or two occasions. As per PW.5

when PW.4 was recovered from the custody of appellant, they were carrying

two bags containing their belongings. As per PW.5 prior to above-

mentioned incident her daughter had been serving in Boss Gear Company at

Gurgaon.

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 14

31. In order to provide support and corroboration to the testimonies

of above-mentioned material witnesses the prosecution had examined

Dr.Usha Rani as PW.11. The PW.11 had deposed that she had examined the

prosecutrix medico-legally on 06.06.2001. The medico-legal report of the

prosecutrix had been proved by the PW.11 as Ex.PK. According to PW.11

there was no external injury mark on the person of prosecutrix, and that her

ultrasound examination was conducted.

32. In addition to above-mentioned three witnesses several police

officials, too, were examined by the prosecution, for proving each and every

event right from the moment of reporting the offence to the police, till the

conclusion of investigation.

33. As far as the above-mentioned evidence adduced by the

prosecution was concerned a careful analysis of the same would show that

the prosecutrix had stayed with the appellant for a period of more than four

weeks and during the above said period she travelled extensively, i.e. from

Gurgaon to Delhi, Delhi to Dehradun, Dehradun to Ludhiana and Ludhiana

to Delhi. During this period she travelled through public transport vehicles.

The above said facts proved that she must have visited public places, i.e.

bus stands for boarding from the buses. Thus, while visiting the public

places, wherein in usual course there was presence of police officials &

public, and while travelling in public transport vehicle, i.e. bus, wherein a

number of persons travelled with the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix was having

ample opportunities to raise alarm for her rescue, but she did not exercise

that option. The above-mentioned conduct of the prosecutrix, who was

admittedly a major girl, leads to an inference that she was a consenting party.

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 15

34. The above-mentioned observations found support from the

principles of law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the

cases of ‘State (GNCT of Delhi)’ (supra) and ‘Shiv Pratap Singh Rana’

(supra). This High Court also in the cases of ‘Tej Parkash’ (supra), ‘Subeg

Singh’ (supra) and ‘Sagar Kumar’ (supra) disbelieved the prosecution stand,

wherein it was found that the prosecutrix had travelled through public

transport and visited public places during the alleged period of abduction.

35. In the present case another relevant fact to be taken into

consideration was that the prosecutrix, in the witness box, had deposed that

during the above-mentioned period of abduction she even stayed in the

house of relative of appellant at Ludhiana, and that the above-mentioned

house was situated in a building wherein numerous persons were residing at

different floors. If there would have been use of any illegal force by the

appellant, the prosecutrix could have sounded alert and seek help, while

residing in the above-mentioned building also but she never did so. Thus,

the observations recorded in the foregoing paragraphs are strengthened

further in the instant case.

36. Another relevant fact to be taken into consideration was that

the PWA.4 in the witness box had categorically deposed that before

07.05.2001 when she was abducted by the appellant, she never had sexual

intercourse with the appellant, but the contents of medicolegal report

(Ex.PK) and ultrasound report of the prosecutrix (Ex.PK/1 to Ex.PK/4)

proved that at the time of her medical examination on 06.06.2001, the

prosecutrix was pregnant and she was carrying seven weeks & four days old

fetus. The above-mentioned pregnancy of more than seven weeks proved

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 16

that this deposition of PW.4 was false that before 07.05.2001 she did not had

intercourse with the appellant. The above-mentioned fact was the clinching

evidence to prove that the prosecution was in relationship with the appellant

and that he was a consenting party to the whole episode.

37. Another relevant aspect to be taken into consideration was that

as deposed of PW.4 she was abducted by the appellant on the pretext of

arranging job for her with the help of his contact. As per PW.4 before that

she was not having any job. But as per complainant (PW.5) before the

above-mentioned incident dated 07.05.2001 her daughter was working in

Boss Gear Company at Gurgaon. The above-mentioned deposition of PW.4,

which was belied by the testimony of PW.5, proved that the PW.4 had not

deposed true facts before the Court. Thus, the PW.4 had been rendered to be

an unreliable witness.

38. Another important aspect which impeaches the credibility of

the testimony of the prosecutrix was that as per PW.4, and as per story set

out by the prosecution, the prosecutrix had left home on the pretext of

attending coaching which meant that she was not carrying clothes on

07.05.2001. With regard to above the PW.4 had deposed that from

07.05.2001 till 05.06.2001 she continued to wear the same pair of clothes.

Firstly, this claim fails to convince a prudent mind that for almost once the

prosecutrix had been wearing the same clothes, particularly when the

prosecutrix had been travelling through public transport vehicle during the

above said period, and secondly the testimony of PW.5 belied the above-

mentioned stand of the prosecutrix as the PW.5 had testified that at the time

of recovery the appellant and the prosecutrix were carrying two bags

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 17

containing their personal belongings.

39. If the above-mentioned part of the testimonies of PW.4 and

PW.5 would have been taken co-jointly, it would lead to the conclusion that

the credibility of the testimony of PW.4 had been duly impeached and that

her deposition was not worth reliable.

40. Thus, in my considered opinion, without adequate

corroboration from an independent evidence with regard to use of force at

the time of abduction and sexual intercourse, the sole testimony of

prosecutrix could not have been sufficient to draw an inference that charges

for the offence under Sections 366 & 376 of IPC had been proved against

the appellant.

41. Since there was no corroboration of above-mentioned testimony

of prosecutrix, from an independent source, it is hereby observed that an

error of judgment was committed by the learned Trial court when it relied

upon the sole testimony of prosecutrix with regard to the claim that she was

forcibly kidnapped and subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant.

Thus, it is hereby held that an error of judgment was committed by the

learned Trial Court by holding the appellant guilty on the basis of sole

testimony of prosecutrix. In view of above discussion, it is hereby held that

there is merit in the present appeal and the impugned judgment and order on

quantum of sentence need interference and indulgence of appellate

jurisdiction vested in this court.

42. As a sequel to above-mentioned observations, it is hereby

observed that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned

judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence deserve to be set

Criminal Appeal No. S-457-SB of 2004 18

aside. Hence, the instant appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned

judgment of conviction and order on the quantum of sentence are hereby set-

aside. The appellant is hereby acquitted of the charges framed against him.

(Surya Partap Singh)

Judge

September 21, 2026

“DK”

Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No