Cr.A.No.541/2012 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Aditya Adhikari and Shri Ritwari Parashar, Advocates for the appellant.
Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-State.
Heard on admission.
This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 20/1/12 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.356/2010, whereby respondent no.2 has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”.
for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.8.09, at about 2.00 p.m., when the prosecutrix was returning from Howbag College, Jabalpur in a Rickshaw, respondent no.2 Sachin Shrivastava along with his associates Chintu, Ravi, Raman and Shrikant came in a red coloured Bolero Jeep and intercepted the Rickshaw.
Alighting from the Jeep, he asked the prosecutrix to marry him and on her denial, threatened to kill her brother and then dragged her inside the Jeep and after blindfolding her took her to Nagpur.
Next day, in Nagpur he took her to Arya Samaj Mandir and constrained her to sign marriage documents and coercively married with her.
Thereafter, he subjected her to rape and along with his friends, took her to various places viz.
Shirdi, Raipur and Bhopal, and on 28/8/09, produced her before this Court in pursuance to a notice issued in a Habeas Corpus petition preferred by Ranjit Singh, father of the prosecutrix, who on 18/8/09 had also filed a missing person report (Ex.P/6) at Police Station Gorakhpur.
Prior to that on 17/8/09 at about 2 p.m., prosecutrix had telephoned her mother and informed that she was going with her neighbour Sachin Shrivastava.
Learned counsel for the appellant, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.
After appreciation of evidence and material on record, trial Court has found that prosecutrix was more than 26 years of age on the date of incident and was a consenting party.
In paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment, it was also held by the trial Court that an application for solemnization of the marriage with her photograph affixed thereon, had also been moved by the prosecutrix before Executive Magistrate, Nagpur and ultimately, the marriage was solemnized in Arya Samaj, Hansapuri, Nagpur on 19/8/2009.
Marriage Certificate (Ex.D/2) was also filed in defence.
The photographs taken in marriage ceremony were also produced as Ex.D/4 to Ex.D/15.
Looking to these photographs, it can be safely inferred that, prosecutrix was cheerful during the ceremony.
This conduct of the prosecutrix, itself reveals, that she was a consenting party and was accompanying respondent no.2 on her own accord.
On perusal of the impugned judgment together with the statements of the witnesses, we agree with the view taken 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 perveRs.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 order of acquittal in question.
The appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE