STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAHANT RUDRAGARI GURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal under sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the impugned judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 282/97 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana, Camp at Patan, recording acquittal from the charges for the offences under sections. 363, 373, 377, 323, 342 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly summarised are as follows:

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel Shri Nitin Amin appearing for the respondents -accused referred to the testimony of the witnesses and submitted that the complainant victim has turned hostile. He submitted that though the complaint ought to have been filed by the police officer, the facts remains that the police officer has not filed the complaint, nor the father of the victim has filed the complaint. He also referred to the testimony of the father of the victim, PW 4, at Exh. 16 and submitted that he has also not supported and corroborated the prosecution case. Learned counsel Shri Amin therefore submitted that the father would have given the testimony as to what has transpired as the child would have reposed confidence in him, but the father has not stated anything about the incident and therefore the impugned judgment recording acquittal cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material and evidence on record. Learned counsel Shri Amin has referred to the provisions of the Children Act, 1960 and pointedly referred to the provision of sec. 41(2). He submitted that it prohibits the court from taking cognizance.