IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT SHYAM BAI VS. STATE OF RAJ. & SHAMBHUGIRI SB Criminal Revision Pet. No.1283 OF 2007 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated June 14, 2007 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2007 whereby the accused respondent was acquitted from the charge of offence under sections 450 and 376 IPC. Date of Order : December 15 , 2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. O.P.Jhajhria for the petitioner. Mr. Ajai Singh for the respondent No.2. Mr.B.N.Sandhu, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Shyamu Bai complainant against the judgment dated June 14, 2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhalwar whereby the accused respondent was acquitted from the charge ofoffence under sections 450 and 376 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant petitioner lodged a report at Police Station Unhal on October 20, 2006 stating that on October 18, 2006 her husband brought accused Shambhugiri for extraction of Soyabeen. On the same night when she was alone at her residence, around 1.00 a.m. accused Shambhugiri came to her residence after crossing the wall and shut her mouth and sitted upon her and due to shut of mouth she could not cry and accused Shambhugiri committed rape on her against her desire and threaten her not to lodge report otherwise he will kill her. After one hour her husband came and she narrated the incident. On the basis of above FIR No.59 of 2006 came to be registered and investigation started. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 376 and 450 IPC. The trial court framed the charge for the offences under sections 376 and 450 IPC and the accused respondent denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case tendered in evidence 8 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. Was recorded and in the statement he stated that the prosecution witnesses made false statements against him. After hearing both the parties the Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the accused respondent vide his judgment dated June 14, 2007. Against this judgment the prosecutrix filed the present revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondent. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statement of prosecutrix Shyamu Bai PW.1 who clearly stated that when she was alone at her home accused Shambhugiri came to her house and shut her mouth and committed rape with her. The court below even did not consider the fact that according to FSL Report, sperm was also present on the skirt of prosecutrix. 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. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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 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 revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/