The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the State's criminal leave to appeal against an acquittal of the respondent. The High Court held there was no illegality as the prosecution failed to prove abduction, rape, or the prosecutrix's minor age beyond reasonable doubt.
No case for grant of leave is made out; criminal leave to appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 67 / 2016
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Puri S/o Mohan Puri Goswami, R/o Nawalpura, Police Station Aakola, District Chittorgarh.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kaushal Gautam
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order
01/05/2017
This criminal leave to appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant the State being aggrieved with the judgment dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Chittorgarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.229/2014, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 366 IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5 (L) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in alternate Section 376 (2)(N) IPC.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant State has submitted that from the statement of prosecutrix PW-6, it is clear that the accused respondent has forcibly abducted the prosecutrix on 24.07.2013 and thereafter has illegally kept her in confinement at his brothers house and committed rape upon her.
(2 of 4)
[CRLLA-67/2016]
It is contended that the trial court without considering the said piece of evidence in right perceptive has disbelieved the testimony of prosecutrix PW-6. It is also contended that the prosecution has sufficiently proved that the age of the prosecutrix was around 17 years at the time of incident but the trial court has illegally observed that no definite proof regarding the age of the prosecutrix to prove that she was minor at the time of incident as has been produced by the prosecution. Learned Public Prosecutor has therefore prayed that it is fit case wherein leave be granted to the appellant-State to file appeal against the impugned judgment.
Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that the trial court has rightly disbelieved the testimony of prosecutrix PW-6 as her testimony does not believable. It is also contended that the PW-4 mother of the prosecutrix and PW-1 sister of the prosecutrix have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is also contended that the prosecution has failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to prove that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of the incident. Hence, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondent for the offences for which he was charged.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the record.
The trial court, after taking into consideration the statement of prosecutrix PW-6, was of the opinion that it is unbelievable that the accused respondent is abducted the prosecutrix on 24.07.2013 and took her to his brother’s house which is around 2- 3 kms away from her house. The trial court was of the opinion
(3 of 4)
[CRLLA-67/2016]
that there is no evidence to the effect that when the respondent was forcibly taking the prosecutrix to his brother’s house, she has put her resistance. The trial court has further observed that the prosecutrix in her statement has stated that she stayed at the respondent brother’s house for two days and in the day time she used to pass time with her sister in law. The trial court has further observed that the prosecutrix has stated that after two days she went along with the respondent to Dudia which is around 10 kms away and during the way many persons have met them but she has not complained to anybody about her abduction or ill treatment.
The trial court has further observed that as per the prosecutrix, she and the respondent have also traveled in the bus and several other persons were also in the bus but she was not complained to anybody. The trial court has also opined that the said testimony of the prosecutrix is unbeliavable that despite having opportunity, she has not complained anybody about her ill treatment at the end of the respondent.
The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that the mother and the sister of the prosecutrix have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. The trial court has further observed that the prosecution has failed to prove any documentary evidence to prove the age of the prosecutrix and the PW-2 Dalla father of the prosecutrix has admitted before the trial court that prosecutrix was married three months before from the date of incident and at that time her age was 19 to 20 years.
(4 of 4)
[CRLLA-67/2016]
After taking into consideration the entire evidence produced by the prosecution the trial court has held that the prosecution has filed to prove charges against the accused respondent for which he was charged beyond reasonable doubt.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent and after carefully scrutinizing the record, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, as the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
In view of the above discussion, no case for grant of leave is made out. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal is dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent immediately.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Gaurav
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed any illegality in acquitting the accused due to insufficient evidence proving abduction, rape, and the minor age of the prosecutrix.
Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the State against the acquittal of the accused.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Rajasthan
Mukesh Puri
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
