AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred u/s 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment passed by II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Maihar, District Satna on 31/8/2010 in Sessions Trial No. 33/2010, whereby respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23/5/09, at about 1 p.m., when prosecutrix was fetching water from Handpump, respondents nos. 2 and 3, who are real brothers, came there, gagged and dragged her inside their house and after abusing and assaulting her, she was raped by respondent no. 1 Dinesh. A written complaint was sent to Superintendent of Police, Satna on 2/6/09, on the basis of which, First Information Report (Ex. P/3) was registered at Mahila Thana, Satna. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned Government Advocate, 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, the trial Court has held in para 28 of the impugned judgment that no offence in regard to gang rape was committed, but in fact, on that day, an altercation and quarrel had taken place between prosecutrix and the respondent nos. 1 and 2. One counter case was also pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maihar. Respondents were falsely implicated in this offence of gang rape.
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 perverse 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.