Seema Sen vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

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 29/9/10 passed by XVII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 34/2009, whereby respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 294/34, 376, 376/34, 506B and 506B/34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).

Prosecution case, in brief, is that upon a false promise to marry, respondent No. 2 took the prosecutrix to his house and subjected her to sexual intercourse for a period of six months and impregnated her. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are parents of respondent No. 2, vituperated and ousted her of their house. When, she apprised his parents of her pregnancy, they again vilified and threatened to kill her. On 16/12/08, a written report (Ex. P/1) was filed, on the basis of which, First Information Report (Ex. P/2) was registered. After completion of 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.

It is an admitted fact that prosecutrix (PW 1) was about 25 years of age. After going through the evidence of prosecutrix as well as other material available on record, it was held by the trial Court that for a considerable period of 2� years, prosecutrix had stayed and cohabited with respondent No. 2 without lodging any report. After appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that during the period 17/12/06 to 13/12/08, prosecutrix was subjected to rape by respondent No. 2 or that the remaining respondents rendered necessary assistance to respondent No. 2 in commission of the alleged offence.

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.