Ku. Puja Dhurve vs Mukesh Alias Shetty

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on I.A. No. 12298/2011, which is an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring this appeal. As per Office note, the appeal is barred by 42 days.

Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A. is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby condoned.

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 dated 5.3.2011 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act")) at Chhindwara in Special Case No. 49/08, whereby respondent no. 1 Mukesh alias Shetty has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 506 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.7.2008 at about 4 pm, when the prosecutrix, a member of scheduled tribe, was with her brother Deepak in her home situated at village-Nuton, respondent Mukesh Yadav came there and giving two rupees, sent her brother for having chocolates. Thereafter, he entered into the house, locked the door and threatening to kill her, committed rape upon the prosecutrix. When her parents returned, she narrated the whole incident. Earlier also, many times, he had committed rape upon her. On 23.7.2008, prosecutrix lodged the report at Police Station-Parasia, upon which offences under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(xii) of the Act were registered against the respondent and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the learned trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned judgment deserved to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.

The trial Court after considering the documents in regard to the date of birth of the prosecutrix and medical evidence held that on the date of incident, prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age. As per medical evidence, she was found habitual of sexual intercourse and no external or internal injury was noticed on her body. Prosecutrix admitted that when her brother came, the respondent got up and after drinking water had left. In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that the offence was not committed on the ground that the prosecutrix was a member of scheduled tribe. From the evidence on record, it was also established, that prosecutrix was maintaining illicit relationship with respondent no. 1 since long. Accordingly, the trial Court found 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 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 switch the order of acquittal in question. The appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.