1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT STATE OF RAJ. vs. BARDHILAL SB Criminal Appeal No.1101 of 2007 under Section 378 (i)(iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated July 30, 2001 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.1) Bundi in Sessions case No. `151 of 2001 whereby the accused respondent was acquitted of the charge under sections 376 and 323 IPC. Date of Order : May 15, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Amit Jindal, for the accused respondent. BY THE COURT : The State of Rajasthan filed Criminal Leave to Appeal against the judgment dated July 30, 2001 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.1) Bundi in Sessions case No. 151 of 2001 whereby the accused respondent was acquitted of the charge under sections 376 and 323 IPC. and this court vide order dated April 27, 2007 allowed the application and the leave to appeal was ordered to be treated as appeal. Accused respondent was summoned through bailable warrant. Hence this appeal. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that on October 18, 1996 prosecutrix Sugna submitted a written report before the Superintendent of Police Bundi to the effect that on October 16, 1996 the accused respondent Bardhilal forcefully committed rape on her in Jwar field. The accused respondent gave threatening to her for not reporting the matter to the police. The prosecutrix informed about the rape to the family members. On the basis of this report the police registered case under section 376 IPC against the accused respondent. The police after investigation filed challan before the court. The trial court framed charge against the accused respondent for the offence under sections 376 and 323 iPC. The prosecution in support of its case examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. The statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence one witness was produced. After hearing both the sides, the trial court vide its judgment dazted July 30, 2001 acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under sections 376 and 323 IPC. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the court below without going through the 3 entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondent for offence charged against him. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. Thus the judgment of the court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondent should be convicted for the offence charged against him. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence came on record and produced by the prosecution. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondent on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor and stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of acquittal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The statement of prosecutrix is not supported by any other evidence in the case. The medical report of the prosecutrix is not supported by the place of incident. All the witnesses are relatives and there is no independent witness in the case. No injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix 4 in order to prove that she has made any protest when the rape was committed on her by the accused respondent. The FIR was lodged after two days for which no explanation whatsoever was given by the prosecution. The enmity between the husband of the prosecutrix and the accused respondent is proved that he has demanded the money borrowed by him and the money for which wheat was given to him. In order to avoid the payment of money borrowed by the husband of the prosecutrix and the wheat taken by him from the accused respondent, they have implicated the accused respondent in a false case of rape. The doctor has also not found any injury on the private part of the prosecutrix. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court and the prosecution has not been able to prove case against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused respondent was acquitted of the charge under section 376 IPC. The trial court rightly passed the judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused respondnet. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The court's attention was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao 5 Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “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.” 6. Thus the order passed by the court below does not call for any interference in the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and the appeal stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/