AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pritinker Diwaker, J
24/09/2018 Considering the fact that record of the trial court has been received default as pointed out by the Registry is overruled.
Heard on I.A. No. 01, application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present petition.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the petition is condoned.
Also heard on admission.
This petition filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the
Special Judge (SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Jashpur in Sessions Trial No.11/2017 whereby the court below has acquitted the
respondent of the offence under Sections 363,366-A and 376 (2)(n) IPC,Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
As per prosecution case, on 14.5.2016, FIR Ex. P-7 was lodged by father of the prosecutrix (PW-2) alleging that since 04.04.2016 prosecutrix has left
the house and did not return. He has stated that earlier also prosecutrix was allured by the accused and this time it is the accused who could have
done the same. Based on this FIR under Section 363 IPC was registered against the respondent/accused. On 7.06.17, the prosecutrix was recovered
from the custody of the accused. After her statement, accused was tried for the offence under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 (2)(n) IPC, Section 6 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, prosecution has examined 19 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.
By the impugned judgment, the trial Judge has acquitted the accused/respondent of the offence as mentioned above.
Counsel for the petitioner/State submits that the court below has erred in law in acquitting the respondent.
Heard counsel for the State/petitioner and perused the record.
During the course of trial, not only the prosecutrix who have turned hostile and even her parents have also turned hostile. There is no legally
admissible evidence that the prosecutrix was minor. Considering the statement of the prosecutrix and other relevant factors, the trial court has come to
the conclusion that no evidence whatsoever has been adduced against the accused/respondent and therefore he is liable to be acquitted.
Thus, after hearing counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the
Court below, no illegality or infirmity is noticeable in the conclusion drawn by the court below acquitting the accused. Even otherwise keeping in mind
the material on record leads to two possible views the one favouring the accused has to be preferably taken, this Court is of the view that the
judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under Sections 363,366-A and 376 (2)(n) IPC,Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is just and proper and does not call for any
interference.
Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the petitioner for registration of appeal against the judgment of acquittal is hereby refused and the petition is
accordingly dismissed.