STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Vs. KALLU RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") is directed against the judgment of acquittal dtd. 31/7/2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in connection with FIR No. 296/2013 at Police Station Vasant Kunj (South), Delhi for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short "IPC").

(2.) Learned APP for the State submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal is illegal and improper and the same has been passed in ignorance of material evidence against the respondent/accused. According to him, the judgment of acquittal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon"ble Supreme Court and this Court. He, therefore, submitted that the learned trial court has erred in acquitting the respondent/accused.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/accused, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, the reasoning given by the learned trial court for the acquittal of the respondent/accused is based on sound legal principle that the respondent/accused cannot be convicted unless the prosecution proves the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, the counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs and Anr,2022 SCC Online SC 1532. Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat,(1983) 2 SCC 174. Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh,AIR 2002 SC 3582. Abdul Sayed v. State of Madhya Pradesh,(2010) 10 SC 259. Narasappa vs State of Karnataka,(2007) 10 SC 770. Narender Kumar v. State of NCT Delhi,(2012) 7 SCC 171. Rajesh Dhiman v. State of Himachal Pradesh,2020 (10) SCC 740. and State of Rajasthan v. Talevar and Anr,2011 (11) SCC 666.