As per this report, accused Raju took her to a fair and mid-way through, made her sniff some intoxicant because of which she became unconscious.Next day, when she regained consciousness, Raju left her in the custody of Amer Khan.It is further averred in this report that during the period she was unconscious, she was taken by Raju from Prithvipur to Jhansi.( 08.02.2019) Heard on the application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. 1973 against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.09.2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Niwari, District- Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No.217/2015; whereby, respondents were acquitted by the Court below of the offences punishable under Section 376, 344, 379 and 506 (part-II) of the IPC.Learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State submits that Court below erred in passing the judgment of acquittal; whereas, there was sufficient evidence against the respondents on the strength of which they should have been convicted.Learned Government for the petitioner/State by placing reliance on judgment Lillu @ Rajesh & another Vs.State of Haryana 2013 (3) SCC 643 submits that merely because the prosecutrix had married thrice, her statement cannot be disbelieved.Learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State by 2 M.Cr.C. No.50448/2018 taking this Court to the statement of prosecutrix submits that she categorically deposed against the respondents, on the strength of which Court below should have passed the judgment against the respondents.2 M.Cr.No other point is pressed by the learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State.We have heard the learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State at length and perused the record.The court below has analyzed the statement of prosecutrix in great detail.Her statement was not disbelieved by the court below merely because she was married thrice.The prosecutrix had filed a written report (Ex.P/5), on the basis of which the F.I.R. was recorded.The prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under section 164 IPC had stated that Raju took her to Jhansi and left her in the custody of Amer.In the statement recorded in the court, prosecutrix stated that Raju took her to the fair where Amer Khan met her and gave her the intoxitant to sniff because of which she had become unconscious.Amer Khan took her to Jhansi.In view of aforesaid material contradictions in the statement on the aspect as to who took her to Jhansi, the court below disbelieved her statement.We do not find any infirmity in the finding of the court below.The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she telephoned her mother from Niwari station and; in turn, she was taken by her mother from the said station.The court below rightly held that when prosecutrix had a mobile phone during the period she was allegedly in the custody of accused persons, she could easily have contacted her parents or police, if she wanted to.The prosecutrix has not 3 M.Cr.C. No.50448/2018 deposed anything against accused Raju and Dharampal in relation to offence of rape, wrongful detention, threatening or snatching of gold chain etc.3 M.Cr.In this backdrop, the court below examined the evidence whether any case is made out against the accused Amer Khan.As noticed, the prosecutrix had taken a diametrically opposite stand as to who had taken her to Jhansi.The starting point of incident itself is not established.The prosecutrix's statement that she was in the custody of Amer for one and half month and was subjected to rape during this period repeatedly was disbelieved by court on the ground that during this period she never tried to take help of neighbours and public.In medical examination also, nothing was found which can establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.The prosecutrix reached police station Prithvipur on 28.07.2015 (Ex.P/7).On 31.07.2015, F.I.R was lodged and her undergarments were seized and slide was prepared.As per prosecutrix's statement, eight days before lodging F.I.R (31.07.2015), she came back to her home.The vaginal slide was prepared after about eight days.Thus considering the life span of sperms, the court below rightly opined that it cannot be safely concluded that said sperms were of Amer Khan.More so, when prosecutrix had categorically deposed that after the incident she had taken bath and changed her cloths.Dr. Richa Jain (P.W.14) in her examination opined that no internal or external injury was found on the body of prosecutrix and no definite opinion regarding rape could be given.After considering the relevant evidence, the court below opined that prosecution has failed to establish its case.In the considered opinion of this court, the court below has meticulously examined the evidence produced before it and reached a plausible and correct conclusion.No perversity in the findings could be 4 M.Cr.

Cited provisions: Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code