S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 258/2016. Case: Meera Bai Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 258/2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Rakesh Matoria, Adv. and For Respondents: Pankaj Avasthi, Adv. |
| Judges | Vijay Bishnoi, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 313; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 376, 406, 420 |
| Judgement Date | April 04, 2016 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
-
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 12.02.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 64/2015, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent from the offences punishable under sections 376, 420 and 406 IPC.
-
Brief facts of the case are that appellant filed a written complaint at Women Police Station, Hanumangarh on 10.08.2013 stating therein that accused-respondent-Sunil is the son of her real aunt (her father's sister) and they used to visit the house of each other and fell in love. It is further submitted that upon knowing this, their family members decided to solemnize marriage of them. After attaining the age of 18 years by the appellant, her parents asked the parents of accused-respondent for their marriage and they fixed the date of marriage as 17.02.2012. It is alleged that the cards of the marriage were also printed, however, just few days before the marriage, Sunil filed an application for stopping his marriage as he did not complete 21 years of age and on account of that, their marriage could not be solemnized. It is alleged that the accused-respondent used to visit her house frequently and despite refusal by her, he used to do sexual intercourse with her repeatedly on the pretext of marriage with her and whenever she refused to do the same, the accused-respondent assured her that since they are going to marry after few months, she need not to be afraid. It is further alleged in the complaint that when the accused-respondent attained the age of 21 years, parents of appellant Tasked the parents of accused-respondent for solemnizing the marriage, then the parents of the accused-respondent called them to perform Teeka ceremony as per their customs, upon which her parents purchased a motorcycle, double bed, sofa set etc. and gave the same to them. It is also alleged that after passing of one month, when her parents asked the parents of the accused-respondent to fix the date of marriage, then the accused-respondent said that he is studying in B.A. Ist Year and he would solemnize marriage with the appellant after completion of examination of B.A. Ist Year, however, even after the completion of said examination, the accused-respondent did not solemnize marriage with her and ultimately on 20.07.2013, he refused to marry her and said that he was passing time with her...
To continue reading
Request your trial