Alli vs State of M.P.

This petition has been preferred u/s 397(2) and 401 of Cr.P.C. by petitioner/prosecutrix being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.1.2007 pronounced by A.S.J. (F.T.C.) Pichhore, District Shivpuri in S.T. No. 113/2006 (State of M.P. Vs. Asharam) whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused u/s 376 of IPC. The petitioner has requested to set aside the impugned judgment and to pass appropriate order.

Before the trial Court the accused stood trial for the charge u/s 376 of IPC for allegedly committing rape with the prosecutrix (PW-2) on 20.8.2005 at about 3 PM in village Badanpur, Police Station Pichhore, District Shivpuri.

The prosecution story in brief is that, at the relevant time when the prosecutrix was sitting in her Cot, the accused came in and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. On hearing her shout, PW-3 Shanti Bai and PW-4 Shiya Bai, who were sitting in the Bakhar, came to the scene. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to them. Her husband Gajraj Singh (PW-5) had gone to his in-laws house. After his arrival, the prosecutrix went to the police station and lodged the report.

After due investigation challan has been filed u/s 376 of IPC. Trial Court explained charge u/s 376 of IPC, and the accused abjured guilt. After recording the evidence the learned trial Court acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of doubt.

The prosecutrix/petitioner has challenged the order of acquittal on the ground that the learned trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence of two ladies i.e. PW-3 Shanti Bai and PW-4 Shiya Bai. Evidence of the prosecutrix has been corroborated by the PW-3 Shanti Bai and PW-4 Shiya Bai. There is no evidence on record to establish the enmity between the accused and the family members of the prosecutrix. The learned trial Court despite the explanation of delay in lodging the FIR acquitted the accused.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

The incident took place on 20.08.2005 and the report of the incident has been lodged on 03.09.2005. It is pertinent nt to observed that the prosecutrix is a married woman and has two children. On her medical examination, PW-7 Dr. Uma Jain did not find any external or internal injury on the body of the prosecutrix. The lady doctor PW-7 has not opined positively as regarding recent sexual intercourse. The learned trial Court after examining the evidence in detail did not find the statement of the prosecutrix reasonable and cogent.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has not committed any irregularity and illegality in exonerating the accused. We, therefore, deem it proper not to interfere with the finding of the trial Court.

Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.