Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Virender Singh @ Golu And Others on 2 June, 2017
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.: 282 of 2015.
Reserved On : 17.04.2017.
.
Decided on: 02.06.2017.
State of Himachal Pradesh ....Appellant.
Versus
Virender Singh @ Golu and others ... Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Addl. AG with Mr. Vikram Thakur, Dy. AG.
For the respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Jamuna Pathik, Advocate.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this appeal, the State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, Camp at Barsar, in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2013, dated 14.01.2015, vide which, learned Trial Court has acquitted the present respondents for commission of offences punishable under Section 363, 376D and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 22. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 09.05.2013, complainant/prosecutrix moved an application .
(Ext. PW1/A) that she was a permanent resident of village Biar and was a student of B.A. 1st year in Government College, Barsar and accused Virender @ Golu studied with her up to 10+2 class and he alongwith other accused, namely, Bhupinder Singh and Ankush (Lala) were residents of Nanawan. As per complainant, she used to go to college by bus and in case she missed the bus, then she used to catch the bus from Nanawan. Accused were unemployed and vagabonds, who often were found sitting idle on Biar bridge.
They used to pass indecent remarks and comments upon the complainant which she used to ignore. In the month of November/December, 2012, accused Virender Singh asked the complainant for mobile number of one Renu, which was refused by the complainant. As a result of this, accused Virender Singh started nursing grudge against the complainant. On 26.03.2013, when she was studying in the room of her house, at around 11:30 p.m., when she went to the bathroom and switched on the light after opening the door, she found accused Virender there. On inquiry as to what he was doing there, accused caught hold of complainant ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 3 and in the meantime, other accused who were hiding near around also reached there. Accused Virender Singh gagged .
the mouth of complainant and thereafter all the accused lifted the complainant and took her to Biar 'khud'. There accused Virender Singh attempted to commit wrong act with her but she resisted. However despite her resistance, accused Virender Singh forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her, as a result of which, she became unconscious. When the complainant gained conscious, she found herself lying naked at the spot. Accused Bhupinder was carrying a torch and accused Ankush was in possession of a mobile phone whereas accused Virender Singh, who was wearing a white shawl was carrying a 'Darat'. When the complainant asked the accused as to what enmity they had with her, accused Ankush replied that they had no enmity with her but they love her. Thereafter complainant wore her clothes and accused asked her to go straight to her house and also threatened her that in case she disclosed the incident to anyone, her sister will also meet the same fate at same place and they will also kidnap her brother.
On the said threatening, out of fear, complainant did not disclose the incident to anyone. Thereafter on 30.03.2013, when complainant alighted from a private bus at Nanawan ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 4 and was on her way to her house, accused met her and asked her to meet them at the same place again and threatened her .
that in case she did not come, they would make public her video clip which was prepared by them. Whenever accused used to meet the complainant, they used to harass her on said count, however, the complainant did not succumb to said pressure. Further as per the prosecution, mother of the complainant on 07.05.2013 came to know about some indecent video clip of the complainant, however, when she inquired about the said fact from the complainant, on account of threats and fear of accused, nothing was disclosed to her by the complainant. Thereafter on 08.05.2013, her 'Mausi' Vishav Sharma visited their house and on her asking, the entire incident was disclosed by the complainant to her 'Mausi'. Thereafter complainant filed application Ext. PW1/A to the police, on the basis of which, FIR Ext. PW17/A was registered. The matter was investigated by SI Vikram Singh.
Prosecutrix was medically examined at CHC Barsar vide MLC Ext. PW19/B. Videography of the statements of Santosh Kumari, Kamla Devi and Vishav Sharma under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short referred as 'Cr.P.C') alongwith supplementary statement of prosecutrix ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 5 was conducted. Accused persons were arrested on the same day. Their mobile phones were seized and taken into .
possession. They were also subjected to medical examination.
Prosecutrix identified the spot from where she was lifted and where the alleged wrong act was committed upon her. On the basis of disclosure statement Ext. PW11/A made by accused Virender Singh, a white shawl and a 'Darat' were recovered by the police. Mobile phones of the accused were sent to CFSL, Hyderabad. Report of FSL was obtained which is Ext.
PW10/J. Statement of witnesses were recorded as per their version. Statement of prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur.
3. After the completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima-facie case was found against the accused, they were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376D and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Learned trial Court vide its judgment under challenge acquitted all the accused of the charges framed against them by holding that the story propounded by the ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 6 complainant of sexual assault on her alongwith her kidnapping and threatening given to her by accused persons .
appeared to be a false and concocted one. Learned trial Court held that statement of complainant (PW1) did not appear to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. As per learned trial Court her statement did not inspire confidence. It was held by learned trial Court that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
5. r Feeling aggrieved by the judgment so passed by learned trial Court, the State has filed this appeal.
6. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as well as Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. We have also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by learned trial Court.
7. In the present case, the respondents/accused already have the benefit of a judgment of acquittal passed in their favour by the learned trial Court. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ankoos and Others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 94 ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 7 "12. This Court has, time and again, dealt with the scope of exercise of power by the Appellate Court against judgment of acquittal under Sections 378 and 386, Cr.P.C. It has been repeatedly held .
that if two views are possible, the Appellate Court should not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal. This Court has laid down that Appellate Court shall not reverse a judgment of acquittal because another view is possible to be taken. It is not necessary to multiply the decisions on the subject and reference to a later decision of this Court in Ghurey Lal v. State Of Uttar Pradesh1 shall suffice wherein this Court considered a long line of cases and held thus :
(SCC p.477, paras 69 -70) "69. The following principles emerge from the cases above:
1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when (2008) 10 SCC 450 he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 8 take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was .
wrong.
70. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well- settled principles crystallised by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons"
for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
(i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;
(ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
(iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
(iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
(v) The trial court's judgment was
manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
(vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence
or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
(vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 9
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court.
.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached-
-one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction--the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
8. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kahan Chand, 2016 (1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 576, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under
"19. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohamed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged."
9. Therefore, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the abovementioned judgments, we will proceed to adjudicate upon in the present appeal.
10. The prosecutrix entered the witness box as PW1, whereas her mother Santosh Kumari entered the witness box ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 10 as PW2. Besides them, aunt of the prosecutrix (Mausi), Smt. Vishav Sharma entered the witness box as PW3. Prosecutrix .
(PW1) deposed in the Court that in May, 2013, she had completed her B.A. 1st year. She deposed that accused Virender @ Golu was her class fellow and they had done their 10+2 from the same school. She further deposed that she knew other accused who were residents of village Nanawan, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur. She further deposed that she used to commute from her village to Barsar by bus and normally, she used to board bus from her village Biar, but at times from village Nanawan also. She deposed that accused were unemployed and vagabonds and were usually found sitting idle at Biar bridge. She deposed that accused used to pass indecent remarks and comments upon her. She deposed that in November/December, 2012, accused Virender inquired Cell Number of a girl named Renu from her who was friend of her sister and was known to her, but she refused to divulge the Cell number of said Renu. She deposed that on account of this, accused Virender started nursing grudge against her. On 26.03.2013, she was studying at her home and at about 11:30 p.m. When she went to bathroom, as she opened the door of the same and switched on the light, she ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 11 saw accused Virender present there. She asked him as to what he was doing there and attempted to run away but .
accused caught hold of her and he gagged her mouth. She further deposed that in the meantime, other accused also joined him and they lifted her and forcibly took her to Biar 'Khad'. She further deposed that accused Bhupender Singh and Ankush caught hold of her arms and legs and accused Virender attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her.
She further deposed that accused Ankush and Virender forcibly removed her 'salwar' and accused Virender forcibly committed sexually intercourse with her and thereafter she fell unconscious. As per prosecutrix when she gained her conscious, she found herself naked and she also found that accused Bhupender had switched on a Torch whereas accused Ankush was having a Cell Phone in his hand.
According to her, accused Virender was standing on one side wearing a white coloured shawl and was holding a 'Draat' in his hand. She deposed that when she asked the accused as to what enmity they had with her, accused Ankush said that there was no enmity, but they loved her. As per prosecutrix, she thereafter put on her clothes and accused persons threatened her with dire consequences and asked her to go to ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 12 home straight away and not to disclose the incident to anyone, otherwise they will harm her siblings. The accused .
also threatened that her sister would also meet the same fate.
According to prosecutrix, she did not disclose the said incident to anyone out of fear. She further deposed that on 30.03.2013, when she was returning home after appearing in Economics examination, accused met her at Village Nanawan and asked her to meet them at the same place, failing which, they would make public her video clipping. She further deposed that she did not succumb to the said threats of the accused. She further deposed that on 07.05.2013, her mother heard rumours about a video clip of her and when her mother confronted her about this, she did not disclose anything to her mother out of fear. She deposed that on 08.05.2013, her maternal aunt Vishav Sharma came to meet her, to whom she disclosed the entire incident including threats given to her by the accused. She stated that at that time her mother as well as Ward Member Kamla Devi were also present. She deposed that thereafter the matter was reported by her mother and Kamla Devi to Naresh Katna, Up Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Nanawan, on 09.05.2013 and on the same evening, she filed a complaint at Police Station Barsar, on the basis of which, FIR ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 13 was lodged. In her cross examination though this witness denied that there were houses adjoining to her house but self .
stated that there were two houses nearby. She deposed that these houses were of her maternal aunt and one Prakash Chand. She admitted that houses of Ganga Ram, Prem Chand and Gian Chand were adjoining to her house. She stated that the place of occurrence at Biar 'Khud' was about 400 meters from her house. She admitted that there is a Primary Health Centre and cluster of Jhugies of Biharis at Biar 'Khud'. She also admitted that path leading from her house to Biar 'Khud' is narrow and rough having bushes on both sides. She deposed that she did not remember the manner in which she was lifted and taken to Biar 'Khud' by the accused persons, however, she made efforts to rescue and free herself from the clutches of accused persons. Suggestions given to her by the defence that she was having an affair with accused Virender as well as physical relations with him were however denied by her. She admitted the suggestion that her maternal aunt i.e. Vishav Sharma was a police Constable and was posted at Mandi. She admitted the suggestion that complaint Ext.
PW1/A was written by her in the presence of her mother Santosh Kumari and maternal aunt Vishav Sharma. She ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 14 admitted the suggestion that after her mother came to know about the rumours of her video clip went to house of Pradhan .
alongwith Kamla Devi. She feigned ignorance that as to whether her mother wanted amicable settlement on account of mistake committed by her (prosecutrix). She admitted the suggestion that she would not have reported the matter, had there been no rumour about her obscene video clip and CD.
11. Mother of the prosecutrix Santosh Kumari entered the witness box as PW2 and deposed that in the month of March, 2013, her daughter was student of B.A. 1st year at Govt. Degree College, Barsar and on 07.05.2013, she came to know from her relatives that a rumour was going around that some obscene video clip of her daughter (peosecutrix) was in circulation and when she confronted the prosecutrix qua the same, she refused about any such incident. She further stated that prosecutrix kept refusing despite her repeated asking and thereafter she disclosed this fact to her sister Vishav Sharma, who was living in Mandi and she came to her house on 08.05.2013 and when they again confronted the prosecutrix about the matter, she disclosed the entire incident which took place on 26.03.2013. This witness further stated that after this she disclosed the entire incident to her ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 15 husband, who used to work at Jammu and he advised her to take the matter to Pradhan of the local Panchayat. She .
deposed that on 09.05.2013, she alongwith Ward Member Kamla Devi met Up Pradhan Naresh Katna and disclosed the incident to him. She deposed that accused persons and prosecutrix were called by Up Pradhan, however, accused persons denied their involvement in the matter. In her cross examination, she admitted that she had approached the Up Pradhan Naresh Katna with the stand that mistake had been committed by the children and the matter should be amicably resolved. She denied that her sister Vishav Sharma was not ready for any amicable settlement and it was on her behest, that prosecutrix filed complaint against the accused on false allegations. This witness also admitted the suggestion that all the accused persons were residents of village Nanwan, which was at a distance of ½ kms from their village.
12. PW 3, Smt. Vishav Sharma, aunt (Mausi) of the prosecutrix, deposed before the Court that she was posted as lady Constable at Police Line, Mandi. On 07.05.2013, at 7:30 p.m. she received a telephonic call from her elder sister Santosh Kumari that there were rumours that obscene video clip of her daughter i.e. prosecutrix was in circulation and ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 16 prosecutrix was not disclosing anything and in these circumstances, she was called by her sister to ascertain the .
truth. She further deposed that on 08.05.2013, she came to village Biar and met her sister and niece and thereafter, she inquired about the rumours from the prosecutrix, on which, the prosecutrix disclosed the entire incident which took place on 26.03.2013. In her cross examination, this witness admitted that after the disclosure of facts to her by prosecutrix on 08.05.2013, matter was not immediately reported to the Police. She denied that prosecutrix had disclosed to her about her love affair and physical relations with accused Virender. She denied that because of these reasons, she went to her parental house without reporting the matter to the police and on next day went to Police Station from her parents' house.
13. Ward Member Kamla Devi entered the witness box as PW4 and she stated that on 08.05.2013, in between 3:00- 4:00 p.m., she happened to visit the house of Santosh Kumari i.e. mother of prosecutrix, who told her that there were rumours about obscene video clip of the prosecutrix in circulation. She deposed that prosecutrix was confronted with said facts but she denied them. She further stated that on the ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 17 same night, at about 7:00-8:00 p.m., she was called again to her house by Santosh Kumari and when she reached there, .
she met Santosh Kumari and her sister Vishav Sharma. She stated that prosecutrix was again asked about the rumours, on which, she disclosed the entire incident. This witness further deposed that thereafter she advised Santosh Kumari to seek assistance from Pradhan. This witness further deposed that on 09.05.2013, she took Santosh Kumari to Up Pradhan Naresh Katna and after the incident was narrated to him, he called the accused persons in the house of accused Ankush Katna, but the accused denied their involvement in the matter. In her cross examination, this witness stated that her house was situated at a distance of 100 meters from the house of prosecutrix and there were 6-7 houses in between her house and house of prosecutrix.
14. Up Pradhan Naresh Chand entered the witness box as PW7 and stated that on 08.05.2013, he received a telephonic call from Santosh Kumari that she wanted to meet him urgently. He deposed that thereafter he met her at Kalka Mata Temple, Tikkar Rajputan, where Santosh Kumari met him alongwith her daughter (prosecutrix), her sister Vishav Sharma and Ward Member Kamla Devi and they told him that ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 18 they had heard about obscene video clip of prosecutrix in circulation and he was asked to call the accused to ascertain .
this fact. He further stated that on 09.05.2013, he called the accused persons in his house but they denied their involvement in the matter. This witness further stated that accused Virender during the course of conversation disclosed to him that on 07.05.2013, at about 10:30 a.m., he (Virender) received a call from the prosecutrix that he (Virender) was being falsely implicated by her relatives and she had asked him to run away. This witness further deposed that mother of the prosecutrix wanted amicable settlement of the matter in the Panchayat and she was not interested to report the matter to the Police. He deposed that thereafter he called mother of prosecutrix to his office for taking the matter before Panchayat quorum, but she did not appear before the Panchayat. Records demonstrate that this witness was declared as a hostile witness and was cross examined at length by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. In his cross examination by Assistant Public Prosecutor he again reiterated that mother of prosecutrix was not interested to take the matter to the police. He also admitted that one of the accused was his real nephew. In his cross examination by ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 19 learned defence counsel he admitted it to be correct that accused Virender and prosecutrix used to roam around .
together.
15. Dr. Priyanka Sharma, entered the witness box as PW19 and she proved on record MLC Ext. PW19/B and she stated that in her opinion there were no signs of recent vaginal penetration and there was no sign of general physical injuries but possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled out in the recent past. In her cross examination, she could not opine that whether prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse.
16. Investigating Officer SI Vikram Singh, entered the witness box as PW 20. In his cross examination he admitted the suggestion that prosecutrix at the time of filing of complaint was accompanied by her mother and maternal aunt Vishav Sharma. He also admitted that prosecutrix filed the complaint regarding the incident after 1 ½ months and during the said period, prosecutrix was attending her college regularly. He also admitted that Forensic examination of Cell Phones of the accused did not reveal of any video clip of the prosecutrix.
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 2017. In our considered view, what is apparent from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is that the mother of .
the prosecutrix somewhere in the month of May, 2013 heard rumours about an obscene video clip of the prosecutrix being in circulation. She confronted the prosecutrix with the said rumours but prosecutrix denied the same. In this background, she called her sister PW3 Vishav Sharma, who was serving as a Constable in Police and was posted at Mandi and when r she (Vishav Sharma, PW3) confronted the prosecutrix about the matter, she disclosed to her and her mother Santosh Kumari about her alleged abduction by the accused on the night of 26th March, 2013 from her house and thereafter accused Virender having sexually molested her at Biar bridge.
18. Now it is a matter of record and also evident from the testimony of Investigating Officer, PW20 SI Vikram Singh that forensic examination of mobile phones of the accused had demonstrated that there was no obscene video clip of the prosecutrix recorded in the said mobile phones.
19. The alleged incident as per the prosecutrix had taken place in the night of 26th March, 2013. According to her, when on the alleged night at about 11:30 p.m. she went ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 21 to bathroom and as soon as she switched on the light of bathroom, she saw accused Virender there and when she .
asked him as to what was he doing there and tried to run away, she was caught hold by accused Virender and her mouth was gagged and in the meanwhile, other accused persons also reached there and they lifted her to Biar bridge, where she was physically molested by accused Virender. In our considered view, the version which has been given by the prosecutrix about the alleged happening of the incident is highly unbelievable. It is difficult to believe that the prosecutrix was lifted from inside of her own house i.e. from the bathroom of her house and thereafter taken to a bridge, which admittedly was 400 metres away from the house of prosecutrix and none came to know about the alleged incident including the mother of the prosecutrix, who was very much present in the house as it is not the case of the prosecutrix that on the fateful night, she was alone in the house. It is apparent and evident from evidence on record that it is not as if the house of prosecutrix was at an isolated place. Therefore, also it is highly unbelievable that no one came to know that a girl was lifted from her house by three persons, especially when prosecutrix herself has stated that she was making ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 22 efforts to escape herself from the clutches of the accused. The contention of the prosecutrix that she did not narrate the .
alleged incident to anyone out of fear and out of threatenings which were given to her by the accused also does not inspires confidence. It is a matter of record that disclosure of her being abducted and subjected to sexual molestation after 1 ½ months after her abduction may be was not a voluntary act of the prosecutrix. It is a matter of record that when the prosecutrix was initially confronted by her mother that there were rumours to the effect that an obscene video clip of her was in circulation, she repeatedly refused these allegations. It is also a matter of record that alleged incident of her being abducted and sexually molested came into existence only after her alleged disclosure of the said happening to her 'Mausi' who incidentally happens to be a constable in the police. In this background, this possibility cannot be ruled out that when the mother of the prosecutrix heard rumours about the obscene video clipping of her daughter making rounds and the prosecutrix refuted the same and thereafter her mother calling her sister to inquire from the prosecutrix, as story was concocted to frame the accused. In fact, defence of the accused especially that of Virender is not that they were ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 23 strangers to the prosecutrix. It is the case of accused Virender that he was having an affair with the prosecutrix and they .
were also having physical relations with each other. Now a perusal of the statement of mother of the prosecutrix demonstrates that on more than one occasion she stated that she was interested in amicable settlement of the matter rather than reporting the same to the police. This fact has also come out in the deposition of other prosecution witnesses. In this background, the possibility of something else happening instead of the alleged occurrences, which were made the basis of the FIR cannot be ruled out. It is pertinent to mention this fact also that even the place where the prosecutrix was allegedly raped by accused Virender was not a secluded place as there were labourers living in 'Jhugies'. All these circumstances, in our considered view, shroud the case of the prosecution with great suspicion. Neither the statement of the prosecutrix is confidence inspiring nor does the same seem to be trustworthy and reliable. Even the statements of PW2 and PW3 do not inspire confidence for convicting the accused for commission of offences for which they have been charged.
20. Besides this, we have also perused the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and a perusal of the same ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP 24 demonstrates that the learned trial Court has taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter and after .
discussing the same at length, it has returned the findings of acquittal in favour of accused. In our considered view also, on the basis of material on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court that prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt cannot be faulted with.
21. Accordingly, as there is no infirmity with the findings returned by the learned trial Court and further as there is no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 02, 2017.
(narender) ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP