Cr.A.No.2466/2010 23.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Ku.
Premlata Lokhande, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, 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 by the judgment dated 30/04/2010 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”.).at Jabalpur in S.T.No.211/2009, whereby respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376 & 306 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”.
for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that during the period 15/06/2004 to 20/06/2008 the accused subjected the prosecutrix to sexual assault with assurance to marry her.
On denial to marry, the prosecutrix committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance.
Crime was registered against the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 376 and 306 of IPC and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant as well as Government Advocate argued that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and deserves to be set- aside and respondents be convict for offence charged.
On perusal of the impugned judgment it is revealed that trial court had found the prosecutrix was near about 25 years of age on the date of incident.
It has also been found by the trial court that she was a consenting party in view of the fact that no complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix for a considerable period of 4 yeaRs.The definition of abetment of a thing, contained in Section 107 of the IPC reveals that a person abets the doing of that thing, if he (i) instigates (ii) conspires or (iii) aids in the doing of that thing.
In this case, the deceased had committed suicide consequent upon denial of marriage by the respondent.
Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this might have been reason for committing suicide, but it cannot be said that the act of the respondent amounted to abetment as it did not fall within the definition indicated above.
Accordingly, the trial Court held 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 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 judgment of acquittal in question.
The appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)