STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BABUJI KANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 20.3.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Sessions Case No. 29 of 1993, by which the respondent � accused was acquitted from the charge of Section-376 of the Indian Penal Code, the State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal and challenged the acquittal order.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case as under: That one Amarben, wife of Balaji Thakor, lodged a complaint on 23.8.1992 and alleged that two days prior to lodging the complaint, the accused � Babuji Kanji Thakor, had committed rape on her when she had gone to her field for collecting grass. It was alleged that when she was in her filed, the accused came from behind and caught her hands and fell her down. Thereafter, the accused caught her both the hands and gagged her mouth and committed the offence of rape. On hearing her shouts, the owner of her adjacent field one Taraji Sagramji Thakor reached at the place where the offence was committed. After seeing Taraji, the accused ran away. She informed Taraji about the incident. She further narrated in her complaint that when the incident took place, one Jalaben also came there and she narrated the incident to her. It is her say in the complaint that thereafter she went to her home, but did not inform her husband about the same. Only after the intervention of some local persons, after two days of the incident, the complaint was lodged.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Rathod, appearing for the respondent accused has opposed this appeal on several grounds. He submitted that, there is delay in filing the complaint without any justifiable reasons stated by her either in the FIR or in her deposition. He further submitted that the witnesses Taraji Sagramji Thakor and Jalaben, whose names were mentioned by the prosecutrix in her complaint that they have seen the occurrence of the offence, have not supported the case of the prosecution. He has further submitted that other circumstantial evidence like serological report of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not support the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the Trial Court was right in acquitting the respondent � accused.