< ^J*M.IS -IK?'SS?''<^ »•.W'9^9 w^^'.^- .M:;?§iKt^ ^,'1-sigl;^ -» u-'.s^ .cl-.^®.® •'w.'^'^'-.-^s' l^ gl,,flj ,t| (tiit-'.B ^jg.M'-t-'.i l-'-::ft>'' .W ua I't-'iEi!'; ;l-..-jij; gr »i '>i: hj fu ua •r •-••js <s ia<»< Qt ia. a'.';:1? "\ ft tl:B. h» .s-*; ^'"^i'^^.i"4''^^^:^^1^?^^^?^ I.M.QUDDUSI State of Chhattisqarh Dinesh Chandra rressnr Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the appellant H.S. Patel & Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, or re •sth <^1 ^ <1 < ^. licant-State of Chhattisgar-h has filed this acquittal appeai-ctToilienging the Judgment of acquittal dated 10.11.2000 ..-,» passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Distr-ict .ilaspur (C&) in S.T. No.180/200, acquitting the cccused of ,the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Ca.se. o-f the prosecution, in short, is that one year prior to 4.2.2000 the prosecutrix, aaed about 20 years, was alone in his house situated in Viliage Ktitari, Police Station Malkhar'oda as her Barents had sone out. The accused came to her and took her in another room where despite resistance by the prpseoutrix, he comrnitted sexual intercourse WTth her. He continued the said act with her and whenever''she tried to ^ ' bppose the said act, the accused used to assure her- .that he wil! marry her and for this renson, she had not toid this.fdct to her parents etc. On account of physical relationship with the accused, the prosecutrix became pregnant and she g&ve. :t.i> r^h "%& I iBBa, 1 t, —~~fj 1. "-"'3t*-?-w^ fi. ~? 2 birth to a child. Howeyer, aftsr birth of child the accused- refused to accept the prosecution, whereupon the repo.ptwas'^ iod9sd ngainst him in the Police Station. After medicatly examinm9 the prosecutrix and completion of investigation; char9e sheet was filed against the accused. 3. The prosecution examined in all 23 witnesses to prove the charge agdinst the accused in course of triai. On appreciation of evidence and mainly considering the evidence of the prosecutrix, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge mentioned above on the ground that act done by the accused does not fal! within the category of rape. 4. We have heard tearned counsel for the State as aiso learned counsel for the respondent. We have also perused the record of the trial Court and the impugned judgment. 5. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that the accused-used to come to her house after departure of her parents and younger brothers & sisters and commit sexual intercourse with her. She has furtiTer stated that when she w.as four months pregnant, she told the accused about her pregnancy, whereupon he told her that he wili keep the child with him. She has further stated that pn being asked by the family members, she toid thdt the accused is the father of. this child. In the cross-examination, she has stated that it js true that on the saying of the accused that he wilt keep her with him, she used to give her- conserst for sexual_mtercourse. On being asked by the Court, she has stated tha,)' first time ateo'the accused told her that as''i-he accused said to her that he will keep her as his wife, therefore, she consented fdr sexual intercourse. She has further stated th'at. as the -a. ::~;'^'IS '!i"^^.r' ,.'.'•' t~:'s ?• '"" ^ accused told her that he will keep she has not told about her rei her as his wife, therefore. the accused. 6. In substance, what the prosecutrix deposed was that the first sexua! intercourse took place aqainst her wiil, thouqh she became a consenting party later on. But, in any case, if the rape was committed by the accused much against her will, she would not have volunteered to submit to his wish subsequent to the alieged first incident of rape. Even otherwise, as per medical eyidence, one year prior to 4.2.2000 age of the prosecutrix was more than 16 years and in rebuttal, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to show that on the date of fir-st sexual intercourse which the appellant had committed, the prosecutr-ix was a minor. 7. From the above discussions, it would appear that the findjng recor'ded .by the trial Court that the prosecutrix was the cons^nt-rng party and consequent acquittal of the accused is in the reatw of pure appreciation of evidence and the view taken by the tr'ial Court is ptausible view in-the state of evidence on Accordingly, we do not find any error in the impi judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. The appeal being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is here by. d is mi s se d^ Sd/- Dr. I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Roshan/- •^^«E?'^-