M CF0000087 48 iQ L £PPLICANT Babufél ~$C¥1 ofWVui’é’ > Gccupa‘tion Agrimltur'ei' ¥ / ~res1dent of Vlllage Sahaspur, % [ o Sta 19m Pandarla, I istrlct B laspur, 11 P Nor APPBT awali‘am .SékiiiiHs‘d‘n of mAN.‘ K Du ‘ State cf hadhya Prades ..‘‘.‘.‘. g ..,,. ...... .. ' _ ‘ Pl" e V i ' 1 D 2 h ‘ XI—HC—ZZ DB: HON’BLE MR; L.C.ADO BH( & HON’BLE MR. DILIP RAOSJA,HEB DESHMUKH, JJ 5 i 23.6.2005 ‘ Whe1i the matt€r is cal ‘ . applicant msp1t6 of ssrv1ce of 1101 Mr RaJ¢3ev Shnvastava co Mr. M.P.S. Bhatla, P511161 L‘ Oral. Appliéant—Babulal, who is Bai, has prefermd this criminal S€ction 401 of the Cr.P.C. bdng dated 19.12.1988 passed by 16 Bilaspur in ST. N9. 19/87 Where a _acquitted th€ non-applicant N9 e on the prosecutrix. ‘M.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer for r ; Perused the judgmentof i Jangliya Bai (PW—4) as al'sp prosecutrix namely Babuial (PW— at the tune of comrmssmn of offel S Judge not believing the prosecution Learned Additomal Sessron case acquitted the accused/non —applicant No.1 on the ground tha 10secutr1x Janghya Bal wae The asons given for not believing » arosecutrix has given evidence before the court in exaggerated manner .ed none appears on behadf of the 1ce of this complaint on the applicant. unsel for non—aplicant No.1. awyer for non—applicant No.2] State, brother—in-law of prosecutrix Jangliya revision under Section 397 read with aggrieved by the judgment Of acquittal arned 3rd Additonal Seseions Judge, by learned Additional Sessions Judge 376 of the IPC for committing rag .1 herein from the Charge of Section We have'heard learned counsel for non-applicant No.1 85‘Mr. on—applicant No 9/ State trial court evrdence of prosecutrix the ev1dence of brother-in law of- ') who said to be reached 0n theepot 1C6. t consentingpaity to the said act and the prosecution case were that the m. about tha facts which were statement as also in the F.I.R, ' that Jangaliya Bai has stated in her evidence that she received injuries when the accused/non-applicalnt No.1 was committing rape on her, 5 whereas, as per medical report no injury was found on the body of prosecutrix. Apart from that, it has also been mentioned that it is not known that Why the prosecutn'x went to fetch the grass at such a far— 0 place when that grass was From the evidehce of Babulal Jangaliya, Bai 8r. accused Kawalram when they were dressing e, that made. Jangaliya Bai suspicions was reported to the poliCe. It hasalso been taken one of the grounds for not believing the evidence of Jangaliya Bai that when the accused was undiessing her she had not objected the accused. Having seen these reasons in the judgment we have carefully ’ - gone through the evidence of Jang’aliya Bai (PW—5) 8n Babulal (PW-4) the trial court for not believing the evidence of prosecutrix are appears to be correct. Ifewe look into th \ themselves after the intercours and thereafter, onlV the matter' iand the reasons assigned by e »evidence of prosecutrix Jangaliya Bai, she has stated in the ccused caught hold of her she started ‘ Berha, Bhadua’ and on this the accused/noneapplicant No.1 th‘eatened her with dire consequences, said that he will kill her and th not mentioned by her in the police The other ground has been mentioned already available in the nearby place. (PW—5) it» appears that Babulal saw examination—in-chief that when ' abusing him by saying “Rog reafter, he fell her down on the earth, but this part of the evidence doe not find place in the F.I.R. as also in i XI-HC-ZZ a EW,WW,1%W WV mmnntnnugnnu‘n‘rWt zoo u‘3"n“vnnvnnnnnnndWnnhnuqnnnu~nnn‘u In”- WWW ' _ .rg part'of evidence of the proscc committing rape on her shs' t accused with therhelp of hand been mtintioned by The tnal c herself released from the Clutcl found on back of her body. 11 haS stated that she received mport of the doctor is not s1 Pemdey (PW—3), who exami paragraph? No.2 of her evidenc opinion about the irlterooulei intemourse and therewas no proeecumx. The prosecutrix Stated‘that after felling her dov .buttons'of her blouse, there were five'buttons in the blouse, thereafter; removed the lungda and then committed rape on her. She has further and undressing the lungda sherdid not raise any ‘cry and she raised the cry only when aceueed wa a committing rape ‘on her: Further She has stated that when the accused was in the pi‘ccess of committing rape on her, Babulal came on the site. PW-S Babulal has stated in his evidence that he heard the cries of argirl ‘save- save’ but he took 15‘20 mintues to reach the place of I occurrence inf-the cross-examination he has stated that after hearing e) ‘ mm§wm K *Wm utrix is no doubt an exaggeration and improvement before the court. Of—course in the later part‘of the , evid‘enw shs has stat€d 3 th at when the accused was busy in fled to escape fromthe clutches of the 6r, leg, but to no Consequences. It has Jurt that when "she made efforts to gets was Opening the buttons 0f herihlouse stated that when the accused res of the accused Why injuriesvwere not { I 1 the crOSS—examjnatiOH the prosecutrix injuries on the back, but the medical gggestive of this fact; Dr, Smt. Sudha led the prosecutxix~,rhas stated in’ e that she was not able to give definite :, as the prosecutxix was habitual in sign of any violence on the body of the in the cross—exarnination has further 'n on'earth the accused first opened the ‘ XI—HC—22 m ‘ mmw‘ . ? \ ir‘w-f \ mm§w %aa%€an%¥r the 01165 he had not rushed tow ards the site from Where’he heard ths é cnes bécaiise he thought that someone might be There but when, " hawalram stood up and her s1< ter—in-law also, stood up and started woanng clothers thou he thought that Kawalram is assaulting her Slster-m law and the: ‘ n towards that site and thereafter, he 1 started chasmg Kawalram He dli not ask anything from her sister-in— ; daw. Kawaham started mmnmg only after seeing him. Therefore, in View of the above evidence of these two witnesses, ) in our considered opinion the finding recOrded by the trial court is based on the legal and sound reasonings that the prosecutn'x was the consenting partV and she leportcd the matter because her brother-in— ,i K law Babaulal saw her and Kawalram at one place. ’ Eventhe matter was leported With a delay of 15 hours and no explanation regarding l $§ i delaV has been glven As such, We are of the opinion that there. is no i reason before usto interfere. with the finding of the trial court and it is t ', L 1‘- v i a ettled law ithat'if two views are *poSsible on the evidence available on ecord then the appellate court or rev1s10nal court should not normally r; {interfere on the View taken by he mal court unless the nndmg is < i elverse or‘contr'aIV to the record In the result we aie of tle opinion that this/revision has, no end: same is liable to be dismis< ed and it is, accordingly, dismissed. .Sd/- _ DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH L C BHADOO ii M Judge '\ Roshan/ — ' d;: Judge J