AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sushma Shrivastava, J.—This order shall dispose of Misc. Criminal Case No. 12531/09 and Criminal Revision No. 1839/09 arising out of the common judgment dated 7.9.09 passed by Sessions Judge Mandla in S.T. No. 105/08 acquitting respondent Antram u/s 376(1) and 506 Part II of IPC.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal, State of M.P. has preferred a petition for leave to appeal bearing M.Cr.C. No. 12531/09, while the prosecutrix has preferred Criminal Revision No. 1839/09.
Respondent was tried for the offences u/s 376(1) and 506 Part II of IPC for committing rape on the prosecutrix and committing criminal intimidation, before Sessions Court. As per prosecution allegations, respondent was a tenant in the house of the father of prosecutrix. He developed physical relations with the prosecutrix. In the month of August 2007, respondent came to the prosecutrix and proposed to her that he loved her and wanted to marry her and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. On her shouting, respondent gagged her mouth and intimidated to kill her in case of shouting. The matter was reported to the Police by the prosecutrix on 4.4.08. On the basis of her report, an offence was registered against the respondent at Police Station AJK Mandla and was investigated. After due investigation, respondent was prosecuted and put to trial.
Learned Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence, came to hold that the prosecutrix was an adult lady of about 23 years of age and as per her evidence, she was having sexual relations with the respondent from 2004 to 2007, but lodged the FIR nearly after three years without any satisfactory explanation. The trial court after scrutinizing the evidence of the prosecutrix found that the prosecutrix continued physical relations with the respondent despite having learnt subsequently that he was a married person with children and complained against him only after respondent left tenanted house. The trial court also held, that though the proseuctrix claimed that the respondent committed rape on her on the false assurance of marriage, but her conduct revealed that she was a consenting party; therefore, acquitted the respondent of both the charges u/s 376(1) and 506 Part II of IPC.
Learned Counsel for the State as well as learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the prosecutrix submitted that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and failed to consider that the respondent sexually exploited the prosecutrix under false assurance of marriage and it was not a case of free consent.
We have gone through the impugned judgment and considered the reasons for acquittal assigned by the trial court. Prosecutrix (P.W-3) was admittedly a fully grown adult lady and, as discussed in the impugned judgment, she had continued physical relations with the respondent, a tenant in her house, for a period over three years and lodged the report after three years when the respondent left her house, despite having come to know that the respondent was a married person having children. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the prosecutrix consented to the sexual acts simply under false assurance of marriage or it was not a case of free consent or consent under misconception of fact. The trial court has critically discussed the evidence of the prosecutrix in detail and held that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The view taken by the trial court is plausible view on the basis of evidence on record and is not perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in the order of acquittal of the respondent. The trial court has recorded cogent reasons for acquittal of respondent.
No case for grant of leave to appeal or interference in the impugned order of acquittal within the limited scope of revision by a private party is made out.
Accordingly, the petition for leave to appeal filed by the State as well as Criminal Revision filed by the prosecutrix are dismissed.