IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No.374/97. Smt.Nathi Bai Versus Kesarilal & Another. 27.3.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma. Mr.Sanjai Mehrishi with Mr.Tarun Jain for the petitioner. Mr.Pradeep Srimal P.P for the State. S.B.Cr.Revision Petition against the judgment and Order dated 22.3.1997 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Cases Court, Kota in Cr.Case No.143/94 whereby he acquitted the non-petitioners No.1 from the offence under Sections 376, 354 IPC and under Section 3(1) (ii) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and ..2.. order dated 22.3.1997 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Cases Court, Kota in Cr.Case No.143/94 whereby he acquitted the non-petitioners No.1 from the offence under Sections 376, 354 IPC and under Section 3(1) (ii) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. The facts of the case in short are that on 9.10.1994, the petitioner Smt.Nathi lodged a written report at Police station Itawa, District Kota alleging therein that on that day at about 10-11 A.M, when she was returning after providing meals to her husband who was working in the field, respondent No.1 Kesarilal came across in front of her near the foot-lane of the field of one Birdhilal Bairwa, forcibly embraced her in his arms, knocked down her on the ground and started committing rape. On hearing hue and cry, for help one ..3.. Motilal who was grazing his buffaloes nearby field rushed to there, her husband Ramratan and Latoor Lal Bairwa were also came there. On seeing them, the non-petitioner No.1 run away from there towards the village. Upon the aforesaid report, police registered a case under Section 354, 376 IPC and Section 3(i) (ii) SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. The police after investigation, submitted a challan before the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn) & Judicial Magistrate No.1, Itawa District Kota who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, Kota transferred the case to the Court of Judge SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Cases Court, Kota. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges under Section 376, 354 IPC and Under Section 3(i) ..4.. (ii) of SC/ST prevention of Atrocities Act against the non-petitioner No.1. The charges were read over and explained to him who denied the charges and claimed. The persecution in support of its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statements of respondents No.1 were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court after hearing both the parties, vide its judgment an d order dated 22.3.1997 acquitted the non-petitioner No.1 from the aforesaid charges. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial court, the petitioner prefers the present revision petition before this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. ..5.. I have also gone through the impugned order dated 22.3.1997 passed by Judge SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Cases Court, Kota. In this revision petition, Mr.Sanjai Mehrishi and Mr.Tarun Jain Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the trial court has not appreciated the statements of prosecution witnesses properly. He has drawn attention to the statements of the prosecution witnesses, especially P.W.2 Nathibai wherein she categorically stated in her statement that non-petitioner No.1 has committed rape with her. Learned counsel has further drawn attention of this Court in a decision of this Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC p.922 and also drawn attention of this Court to Section 114-A of the Evidence Act and contended that the rape committed by the accused was not a ..6.. case of consent and the trial court has seriously erred in acquitting the respondent No.1. On the other hand, Mr.Pradeep Srimal learned Public Prosecutor has contended that in this case, in the absence of FSL report neither the stains on ghaghara and Blouse could be proved nor any report about vaginal swab and swear got be brought on record, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent No.1. He further drawn attention of statement of P.W.3 Moti Lal and P.W.4 Surendra Vyas reveals that all these witnesses doubtful. The FIR lodged by the petitioner was also delayed, the trial was rightly acquitted the accused respondent and no interference is required by this Court and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. ..7.. The court attention was drawn on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umrao Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,reported in 2006 SC Vol 10 Page 136 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- “It is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below”. In view of the above, this revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed by confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.3.1997, passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Cases Court, Kota. Revision petition is dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J. k.