Full Judgment
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. Through this appeal order of acquittal passed by Sessions Judge, Satna in ST. No. 80/87, dated July 6, 1989 has been challenged by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
2. Shortly stated, prosecution case is that accused Karia alias Kallu committed rape on Lalli daughter of Gopi Prasad (P.W. 6) and Bisarania (P.W. 1) on 4-7-1987 at about 7.00 p.m. in Village Ucchehra in.front of Ucchehra School. First Information Report (Ex. P-5), is based on written report (Ex. P-4) recorded at the instance of Gopi Prasad (P.W. 6). Investigation was commenced, prosecutrix and accused were subjected to medical examination, former by Dr. Mrs. K. Verma (P.W. 8) and the latter by Dr. Santosh KumarJain (P.W. 11). Clothes of prosecutrix and accused were taken into possession, sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar and reports obtained. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and accused was committed to Court of Session which acquitted him by the impugned order.
3. Question for consideration is as to whether the acquittal of accused is justified on evidence in the case. Allegation of prosecutrix is that she was subjected to rape by accused and she was asked not to disclose the same. However, she disclosed to her mother, who narrated the incident to the father and the report was lodged. Another feature of the case is that Kallu was with the prosecutrix at the time of incident. She told this incident to her mother Sonia (P.W. 4) and Bhailal (P.W. 5). During the course of her statement, prosecutrix admits that enmity existed between her parents and parents of accused and that she had given the statement as suggested by the Investigation Officer. Further, her medical examination and FSL report eliminate the commission of the crime. Medical report does not disclose commission of rape. Hymen was found intact. No semen was present on her person, nor on her clothes. Though Bisarania (mother) and Gopi Prasad (father) stated that blood was coming out of the private parts of the prosecutrix, yet nothing is found in FSL report. Doctor also states that rape was not committed, hymen being intact and no sign of injury on the person of prosecutrix. Therefore, explanation of the accused that he did not commit any rape on the prosecutrix and he has been involved due to previous enmity, has justification.
4. The Trial Court has given adequate reasons after analysis of the evidence carefully, for acquitting the accused of the crime. In our opinion, the evaluation made by the Trial Court of the evidence of material witnesses does not suffer from any illegality, manifest error or perversity. Prosecution has failed to substantiate the charge against the accused, therefore, it is difficult to record finding of conviction on the basis of evidence described above. It is not a case where it can be said that two views are possible one pointing to the guilt of accused, and the other against it. It is well settled principle of law that unless finding recorded by the Trial Court is perverse and manifestly erroneous, Appellate Court should not take a different view from that taken by the Trial Court and disturb the order of acquittal.
5. Giving serious consideration to the matter, particularly the evidence in the context of allegation of rare committed on a minor, no case for interference is made out. That apart the incident is of 4-7-1987 and period of 15 years has passed. For all the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.