Anita Rani vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Dheeraj Kumar-respondent No. 2 was tried for an offence u/s 376/313, 120B, 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter referred to as ''IPC'') vide judgment dated 16.12.2004. Respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him. Hence, the present revision petition.

Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the trial court in para 2 of its judgment is as under:

The complainant prosecutrix Anita Rani is resident of Gandhi Nagar, Muktsar. Her father mostly remains away from home and busy in his work. Her mother is doing utensils cleaning work in different houses. Younger brother and sisters go to school. She mostly remains alone at house. In her neighbourhood lives accused Dhiraj Kumar. He developed physical relations with her promising to get married to her. He occasionally visits her house and had intimated relations with her. At one stage, she got pregnant and the accused had given an injection as a result of which her pregnancy was terminated. She had to be removed to hospital from where intimation to the police station was sent whereupon she suffered a statement alleging rape on the part of the accused. On the basis of the report Mark-A, a case FIR No. 112 dated 14.7.2004 was registered against the accused u/s 376/313/120-B and 323 of the IPC, whereupon he was arrested on the same day. During course of investigation, he and the prosecutrix were medico legally examined. Statements of witnesses were recorded.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix had resiled from prosecution case as respondent No. 2 had promised to get married to her. However, later on, respondent No. 2 had not honoured the said promise.

Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that there was no evidence before the trial court to connect respondent No. 2 with the charge framed against him.

It has been held by Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee v. State of West Bengal (ST) JT 2004 (10) SC 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect or procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice.

A perusal of the judgment of the trial court reveals that prosecutrix or her mother had not supported the prosecution case. This petition has been filed after about two years of passing of the impugned judgment. In these circumstances, learned trial court had rightly acquitted Dhiraj Kumar-respondent No. 2 of the charge framed against him. The present case does not warrant retrial. As per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. The impugned judgment of the trial court, thus, calls for no interference.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. The application seeking condonation of delay is merely academic and is disposed of as such.