Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Rakesh & Ors on 30 November, 2016
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B.CRML LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 224 / 2016
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rakesh son of Laxman, b/c Vasuniya Adiwasi,
R/o Karanghati, P.S. Patan District Banswara.
2. Kamal @ Kamal Singh son of Jalu, b/c Vasuniya
Adiwasi, R/o Karanghati, P.S. Patan District Banswara.
3. Laxman son of Natha, b/c Vasuniya Adiwasi,
R/o Karanghati, P.S. Patan District Banswara.
4. Amar Singh son of Jalu, b/c Vasuniya Adiwasi,
R/o Karanghati, P.S. Patan District Banswara.
5. Narayan son of Bapu, b/c Vasuniya Adiwasi,
R/o Sunriya, P.S. Patan District Banswara.
----Respondents
__________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. K.K.Rawal, P.P.
__________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order 30/11/2016 The State of Rajasthan has approached this Court by way of the instant application for leave to appeal under Section 378(i)&(iii) Cr.P.C. craving leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 13.5.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (2 of 4) [CRLLA-224/2016] Camp Kushalgarh Banswara acquitting the respondent accused of the charges under Sections 147, 344, 366 and 376 IPC.
I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned P.P. and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record.
Victim Mst. 'K' was examined at trial as P.W. 1. In such statement, she clearly admitted that after she had allegedly been forcibly abducted by the accused on 23.8.2010, she stayed with the accused Rakesh at Kota in a rented room for almost fifteen days. Rakesh used to go out for earning livelihood and she used to prepare food for Rakesh. She went to Police Station Patan but did not make any complaint to the police. The alleged incident of forcible abduction took place on 23.8.2010. Even though the victim was accompanied by her mother and other relatives but the F.I.R. was lodged as late as on 28.8.2010 i.e. after 5 days. Had there been an iota of truth in the allegation that the victim was kidnapped from a bus in presence of her mother and other relatives then, there was no reason as to why the F.I.R. could not be filed promptly. The documents exhibited in defence are clearly indicative of the fact that the victim voluntarily went through a wedding ceremony with the accused. The victim was confronted with her affidavit Ex. D-1 (3 of 4) [CRLLA-224/2016] and the photographs of wedding ceremony with the accused in which she admitted having married the accused Rakesh. She stayed with the accused for almost 25 days without making any protest whatsoever. The statement of the victim recorded during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was exhibited by the prosecution as Ex.P-4 and in such statement she admitted having long standing love affairs with the accused Rakesh and also that she had gone with the accused of her own free will and married him voluntarily. She clearly stated that the accused Rakesh did not commit forcible intercourse with her in the said statement.
In view of these significant admissions made by the victim in her testimony, the trial court was perfectly justified in discarding the prosecution story and acquitting the accused from the charges. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any factual or legal shortcoming so as to interfere therein. No view other than acquittal of the accused is permissible upon a re-appreciation of the evidence available on record.
Consequently, the instant application filed for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.5.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge, Camp Kushalgarh, Banswara in (4 of 4) [CRLLA-224/2016] Session Case No. 3/2011 being devoid of merit is hereby rejected.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J. /sushil/