KUNDANBEN LALITKUMAR KAREL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under Sec. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is filed by the appellant - original informant - victim challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge (Atrocity) and third Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar dtd. 24/1/2023 rendered in Special Atrocity Case No.35 of 2017 against the sole accused - respondent no.2 herein.

(2.) Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on verifying from the State Government, states that it has decided not to prefer an Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal, which is challenged by the present appellant.

(3.) The appellant is the Principal in Khayadi Wadi Primary School whereas respondent no.2 - accused was teacher in the very same school. As per the case of the prosecution, on 3/8/2016, the appellant was present in the School as per her daily routine and two co-employees were on leave for training for two days. On the date of the incident i.e. 3/8/2016, the appellant - first informant and the accused were the only teachers in the School. It is the case of the prosecution that at about 3:30 p.m. in the second recess when the students were playing in the playground, the appellant - first informant went to the additional room of the School for making tea and at that time the respondent - accused all of a sudden entered the room and closed the door. On seeing that, the first informant ran to open the door but the respondent - accused over powered her and tied her mouth with the dupatta. It is further the case of the prosecution that the respondent - accused removed her clothes and against her wish committed the offence. It is further the case of the prosecution that the respondent - accused threatened her not to tell anything to anyone as he has already recorded the video thereof and told that he would make it viral in case it is disclosed to anyone. It is further the case of the prosecution that since her husband is working as a driver as and when he goes outside, the respondent - accused threatened that he would be assaulted and murdered by his people. It is further the case of the appellant - first informant that thereafter the respondent - accused leaving her inside the room walked out of the room. The first informant thereafter in the evening narrated the incident to her husband and thereafter both went to the house of the respondent - accused and there also the respondent - accused threatened them for making her video viral. It is further the case of the prosecution that because of the said incident and because of fear of her image being tarnished, no complaint was given at that time. However, it is further the case of the prosecution that on 22/8/2016, while they were going outside in the morning the respondent - accused met them and the husband of the appellant - first informant asked for the video clipping from the respondent - accused, which led to a quarrel between them. It is further the assertion of the prosecution that the appellant - first informant came to know that in past also the respondent - accused has practiced same things with others also. At last for the said incident dtd. 3/8/2016, FIR came to be lodged on 25/3/2017. To prove the case against the respondent - accused, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and produced and proved approximately 40 documents on record. On conclusion of the trial, vide Exh.96 the prosecution gave closing purshis and thereafter further statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of 'the Code' was recorded. The respondent - accused denied the evidence led against him of the incident having occurred. Thereafter on hearing the prosecution as also the defence, the learned Judge has recorded the order of acquittal in favour of the respondent - accused, which is under challenge.