The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Tarun

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on I.A. No. 15726/2013 which is an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in preferring this application for leave to file appeal. As per office note, the application is barred by 18 days.

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

Also heard on admission.

This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 14/03/2013 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen, in Sessions Trial No. 157/2012, whereby respondent namely Tarun has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 342, 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27/4/12 at about 5.30 p.m., when the prosecutrix had gone to the Jungle to answer the call of nature, she saw that respondent Tarun and one Rahul were sitting there. They came towards her, respondent tied her hands back and subjected her to rape, while Rahul kept standing there. Thereafter the miscreants went away and the prosecutrix untied her hands and rushed to her home, where her mother removed the Dupatta used for trussing her mouth. Upon the said information, report (Ex.P/1) was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.

Date of birth of the prosecutrix, as mentioned in the marksheet (Ex.P/10) produced by her father, is 4/3/1996, and, accordingly, on the date of incident, she was more than 16 years of age. Prosecutrix has deposed that the spot is at a distance of about 5 minutes from her home. Despite that, she had returned after about 4 1/2 hours and that too when her father had gone in search of her and during this period she had remained in the company of the respondents. Dr. Preetibala (PW6), who had examined the prosecutrix, did not find any injury on her body or private parts. Her hymen was found intact. In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.

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 judgment of acquittal in question. The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.