- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B.CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.80/2008 (State of Raj. Vs. Narottam @ Nolya) S.B.CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 CR.P.C. ***** DATE OF ORDER::-19-09-2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr.B.S.Chhaba, Public Prosecutor Mr.Ashwini Sharma, for the respondent BY THE COURT: This Cr. Leave to appeal has been filed challenging the order of acquittal dated 17.2.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Kota. The accused respondent has been acquitted of the charge under section 376/511 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(11)(12) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short the Act). It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that in view of statement of prosecutrix Sunita, it is clear that accused committed offence under Section 376/511 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(11)(12) of the Act. It is contended that the learned trial court committed illegality in acquitting the accused. - 2 - I have considered the submissions made before me. In the instant case, prosecutrix lodged a complaint on 20.6.2006 at the Police Station, Sangod, District, Kota alleging therein that at about 8:00 P.M. When she went outside of her house to ease out herself in a field, at that time one man with muffled face came there and caught hold of her and tried to molest her. It is also alleged that on her making hue and cry and in that process the clothes by which the mouth was covered was removed by her and she could see in the light that it was accused respondent Narottam. The accused was also seen at that time by her father Babu Lal, maternal uncle Madan Mohan, Dhanraj and Ram Nath & others. On the basis of above report, F.I.R. No.131/2006 was registered in the Police Station, Sangod for offence under section 376/511 read with section 3(1)(11) of the Act. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Charge under section 376,511, 354 I.P.C. was framed along with Section 3 of the Act. The accused respondent denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. In the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused stated that he was falsely implicated in the case as on account of enmity he was involved. In defence, the accused has produced himself. The learned trial court after hearing both sides, acquitted the accused. Hence this cr. leave to appeal has been filed. - 3 - The learned trial court acquitted the accused respondent for the reason that First Information Report was lodged on 21.6.2006 by the accused in relation to an incident, which took place on 20.6.2006. The learned trial court further found that there was material variance between Ex.P1 and the statement recorded in the court of the prosecutrix. The trial court further came to the conclusion that on 20.6.2006 the accused was in unconscious condition and the police had taken the accused to the hospital. The learned trial court after scanning the evidence and taking into consideration the statement of the accused recorded under section 315 Cr.P.C. acquitted the accused. The learned trial court has discussed the matter in detail. It is not disputed that the complainant and the accused respondent side were not on good terms. It also appears that none of the independent witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case. The accused in his statement has clearly stated that on account of enmity, he was involved in the case. On this aspect, there appears no cross examination from the accused when accused appellant in the witness box. The learned trial court in the above circumstances acquitted the accused. The finding recorded by the trial court appears to be reasonable, just and proper. The position of law is also settled on the point that even if two view are possible on the basis of evidence adduced in a case then preference is to be given to the view taken by the trial court unless it is found that evidence has been misread or findings are against - 4 - the material available on record. In the instant case, no injury was also found on the person of the prosecutrix. I do not find a reason to take a different view than the one taken by the trial court. It does not appear from the perusal of the statements recorded in the case that the trial court has misread the evidence. Therefore, in my view, the leave to appeal filed being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. In the result the leave to appeal stands rejected. (S.P.PATHAK) J. BKS/-