Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 904 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Mahaveer Prasad

2017-04-06

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the State being aggrieved with the judgment dated 03.07.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') in Sessions Case No. 19/2013, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 376/511 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that PW/1 submitted a written report at Police Station Sardarshahar stating there that on 16.12.2012 at about 5.00 P.M. when she went for easing herself in one Bara situated away from her house then suddenly accused respondent came there and caught hold of her hand and thereafter tried to commit rape upon her. The police registered the FIR and started investigation. After completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused respondent from the offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC. The case was committed to the trial court and the trial court has framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 376/511 IPC. The accused respondent has denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution has produced as many as four witnesses and also got exhibited several documents. The statements of the accused respondent were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court after analyzing the prosecution evidence and the other material available on record has acquitted the accused respondent from the offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC. Being aggrieved with this, State has preferred this leave to appeal. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has proved the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 376/511 IPC against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt, however, the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting him for the aforesaid offence. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and argued that from the said piece of evidence, it is clear that the prosecution has proved before the trial court that the accused respondent had tried to commit rape upon the prosecutrix, hence, it is a fit case wherein leave should be granted. 5. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and argued that from the said piece of evidence, it is clear that the prosecution has proved before the trial court that the accused respondent had tried to commit rape upon the prosecutrix, hence, it is a fit case wherein leave should be granted. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent has submitted that as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 376/511 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting him for the aforesaid offence and, therefore, no case for grant of leave is made out. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully scrutinized the record. 7. PW-2 and PW-3 husband and father-in-law of the prosecutrix respectively have clearly stated that they reached the spot after hearing the cries of prosecutirx and attempt on the part of the accused respondent to commit rape upon the prosecutrix has not happened in their presence. PW-1 prosecutrix in her examination in- chief has stated that the accused respondent had caught hold of her hands and thereafter tried to commit rape upon her, however, in her cross-examination, she has specifically stated that the accused respondent had only caught hold of her hand and had done nothing. In her cross-examination, she has also stated that her husband and father-in-law have not witnessed the incident and has also admitted that a dispute is going on between the father-in-law, husband and the accused respondent and his brother. She has also admitted that the dispute is only regarding the way and no other dispute exists between the accused respondent and her family members. 8. After going through the statements of PW/1 prosecutrix and after carefully examining the record of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Hence, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting him for the aforesaid offence. 10. Hence, no case for grant of leave to appeal to this Court is made out. This leave to appeal is dismissed.