Ku. Neha Ahirwar vs Vinod

B.D. Rathi, J.—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 17/8/11 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 218/2010, whereby respondent no. 1 Vinod has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").

Prosecution case, in brief, is that upon a false promise of marriage, respondent no. 1 persistently, for a period of two months, subjected the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse and impregnated her. Thereafter, on 7/4/10, again on the pretext of marriage, he took her to his house at Jamada and continually subjected her to sexual assault till 15/7/10 i.e. the date on which, she was brought back to her home by her father. A missing report, with regard to the prosecutrix, had been lodged by her father at Police Station Pipariya, whereas, First Information Report (Ex. P/11), leading to registration of Crime No. 139/10 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC, was registered at the instance of the prosecutrix. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

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.

After appreciation of evidence and material available on record, trial Court held in para 16 of the impugned judgment, that prosecution had failed to prove that during the relevant period, the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. In para 31 of the judgment, the trial Court found that during her medical examination, no injury was noticed either on the body or on the private parts of prosecutrix. Complaint regarding pain in private parts was also not made by the prosecutrix to the doctor during the course of examination, meaning thereby, that the prosecution version was not corroborated by medical evidence. After detailed discussion of the evidence, it was also found by the trial Court that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.

On perusal of the evidence and material available on record, 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.