Bhagwaniya Bai vs Hiralal

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on I.A. No. 22054/11, which is an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay. As per office note, the appeal is barred by 22 days.

Considering the reasons assigned therein, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned.

Heard on admission.

This appeal has been preferred u/s 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 9/8/11 passed by Sessions Judge, Dindori in Sessions Trial No. 80/2009, whereby respondent no. 1 has been acquitted.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 5/7/2009 at about 1 a.m., when the prosecutrix was fast asleep, respondent barged into her house by kicking its door open and, thereafter, committed rape on her and when prosecutrix tried to shriek, he threatened to kill her. When husband of the prosecutrix exerted to get the door opened from outside, respondent no. 1 foiled his attempt, on which her husband locked the door from outside and called the Police and thereafter the Police found respondent no. 1 and prosecutrix inside the room. When, FIR was not registered by Police, then written complaint (Ex. D/1) was sent addressed to Superintendent of Police, Dindori by the prosecutrix after 5 days from the date of incident. The whole story, as mentioned above, was narrated in Ex. D/1.

Learned counsel for the appellant, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record of the trial Court.

As per the statement of Dr. Kamlesh (PW 1), no injury was noticed either on the external or private part of the prosecutrix. Investigating Officer was not examined. Prosecutrix was a tenant in the house of Savita (PW 5), but, Savita was declared hostile. Moreover, material witnesses viz. husband and son of the prosecutrix, have also not been examined. Prosecutrix (PW 7) was a consenting party as per the finding given by the trial Court.

We fully agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record.

It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.

Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view. As such, no interference is called for with the order of acquittal in question. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.