State Vs. Babla

State vs Babla

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided Oct 31, 2015

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/66840

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/66840
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On: Oct 31, 2015
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State

Respondent

Babla

Excerpt

.....the police filed charge sheet against the accused-babla for offences under sections 376, 342, 323, 506 ipc.6. the trial court framed the charges for the offences under sections 376, 342, 323, 506 ipc, which were read over and explained to the accused. the accused denied the charges and claimed trial.7. during the trial, the prosecution got examined eleven witnesses (pw-1 to pw-11) and tendered documentary evidence (ex.p.1 to ex.p.15). the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 cr.p.c. no evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused in defence.8. after due consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court arrived at the finding that on the basis of the evidence adduced the charges are not proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, state of rajasthan vs. babla (s.b.criminal leave to appeal no.257/15) 3 acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges for offences under sections 376, 342, 323, 506 ipc. hence, this leave to appeal.9. learned public prosecutor submitted that the learned trial court fell in error in acquitting the accused-respondent from the offences charged inasmuch as, there is ample evidence available on record, which proves the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. learned public prosecutor submitted that the trial court has seriously erred in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecutrix at the relevant time was more than 18 years of age. the public prosecutor further submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the prosecution both oral as well as documentary in correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous finding being arrived at.10. i have considered the submissions of the learned public prosecutor, gone through the judgment of the trial court and the evidence on record.11. indisputably, at the relevant time, in view of clause (vi) of section 375 ipc, sexual intercourse with a woman not related as wife below 16 years of age, with.....

Full Judgment

STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BABLA (S.B.CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.257/15) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER

STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BABLA (S.B.CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.257/15) Date of Order :

31. 10.15. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. M.S. Panwar, Public Prosecutor.

1. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

2. This leave to appeal u/s. 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.5.15 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur, in Sessions Case No.21/13 (CIS No.687/14), acquitting the accused-respondent of the charges for the offences under Sections 376, 342, 323, 506 IPC .

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda on 1.6.12, stating that on 15.5.12 her daughter, who is 12 years of age had gone to the hills for grazing cattles but returned home weeping at about 12.00 PM and revealed that accused-Babla in intoxicated condition, caught her and committed rape on her. It was stated that after the STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BABLA (S.B.CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.257/15) 2 incident, the complainant approached the SHO, Police Station, Sayara, time and again but to no avail.

4. The complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the Police Station, Sayara, for investigation whereupon, on 19.6.12, an FIR being No.120/12, was registered against the accused for offences under Sections 376, 341, 323 IPC and investigation commenced.

5. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-Babla for offences under Sections 376, 342, 323, 506 IPC.

6. The trial court framed the charges for the offences under Sections 376, 342, 323, 506 IPC, which were read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

7. During the trial, the prosecution got examined eleven witnesses (PW-1 to PW-11) and tendered documentary evidence (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15). The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused in defence.

8. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court arrived at the finding that on the basis of the evidence adduced the charges are not proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BABLA (S.B.CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.257/15) 3 acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges for offences under Sections 376, 342, 323, 506 IPC. Hence, this leave to appeal.

9. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the learned trial court fell in error in acquitting the accused-respondent from the offences charged inasmuch as, there is ample evidence available on record, which proves the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court has seriously erred in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecutrix at the relevant time was more than 18 years of age. The Public Prosecutor further submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the prosecution both oral as well as documentary in correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous finding being arrived at.

10. I have considered the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor, gone through the judgment of the trial court and the evidence on record.

11. Indisputably, at the relevant time, in view of clause (vi) of Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse with a woman not related as wife below 16 years of age, with or without consent, is an offence of rape. But then, in the instant STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BABLA (S.B.CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.257/15) 4 case, the prosecutrix (PW4) in her deposition has disclosed her age to be 13 years. The father of the prosecutrix (PW3) in his deposition has disclosed the age of the prosecutrix to be about 13 years. The mother (PW6) of the prosecutrix though, in examination-in-chief disclosed the age of the prosecutrix to be 14 years but then, in the cross examination, has stated in unequivocal terms that her marriage was solemnised 20 years back and the prosecutrix was born just after two years of marriage. The Medical Officer, Rahul Jain (PW9), has opined that age of the prosecutrix is between 17 to 18 years. As per the x-ray report (Ex.P/8), the bone age of the prosecutrix is opined to be 17 to 18 years. Thus, after due consideration of the evidence on record, the finding arrived at by the trial court that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of commission of offence, cannot be faulted with.

12. As per the deposition of the prosecutrix (P.W.4), she was not forcibly taken away by the accused-Babla to the forest rather, she followed him voluntarily. It is stated that the accused committed rape on her thrice, however, she did not raise any voice. The prosecutrix has stated in unequivocal terms in cross-examination that she had STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BABLA (S.B.CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.257/15) 5 indulged in sexual intercourse with the accused-Babla even prior to the incident of the rape. It is stated that the father of the prosecutrix had seen the prosecutrix and the accused indulged in the sexual intercourse. She further stated that the accused did not pay the money before the Village Panchayat and therefore, her father got registered the case against him. The father of the prosecutrix (PW3) has also admitted in unequivocal terms that a Village Panchayat was convened and since the accused did not pay Rs.6,000/-, the case was got registered against him.

13. Thus, taking into consideration the statements of the prosecutrix, her mother, father and other witnesses, this court is of the considered opinion that in absence of any cogent evidence on record suggesting that the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court that the charges against the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt, appears to be just and proper.

14. In this view of the matter, no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out.

15. The criminal leave to appeal is therefore, rejected. (SANGEET LODHA),J.

vij

Same Court & Year Rajasthan Jodhpur · 2015 Same Parties State vs Babla Same Subject Criminal