STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. INAYAT HUSSAIN MOHAMED MIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mehsana on 23rd August, 1984 in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1984 is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the prosecution. Thereby the learned trial Judge has acquitted the respondent herein (the original accused) of the charge of commission of the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC for brief).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal move in a narrow compass. It is the case of the prosecution that one girl by the name of .Hemlata was taken away by the accused on 12th August 1983 from the lawful guardianship of her grandfather. She was below the age of 18 at the relevant time. She was carried to different places like Himatnagar, Ambaji, Palanpur, Ajmer and Sidhpur. She was subjected to rape in the course of their journey to all these places. It appears that the grandfather of the girl gave his complaint on 13th August 1983 charging the accused of taking away her from his lawful guardianship. Thereupon the investigation machinery was set into motion. In the course of investigation the accused was apprehended on 4th September 1983. The investigating officer came to know from him that the girl was kept in the house of his paternal aunt at Sidhpur. Thereupon she was recovered from the house of the paternal aunt of the accused at Sidhpur on 4th September 1983 itself. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Mansa charging the accused with the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366-A and 376 of the IPC. Since trial of both the offences was beyond the competence of the learned Magistrate, the case was committed to the Sessions Court at Mehsana for trial and disposal. It came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 25 of 1984. It appears to have been assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal. The charge against the accused was framed on 13th June 1984. He did not plead guilty to the charge. He was thereupon tried. After recording the prosecution evidence and recording the further statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the CrPC for brief) and after hearing rival submissions, by his judgment and order passed on 23rd August, 1984, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mehsana acquitted the accused of the charge levelled against him. That aggrieved the prosecution. It has therefore preferred this appeal after obtaining leave of this Court for. questioning the correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Divetia has taken us through the entire evidence on record in support of his submission that the learned trial Judge was in error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the respondent herein beyond any reasonable doubt. According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Divetia, the overwhelming evidence on record is eloquent enough to point unmistakably the finger of guilt towards the respondent-accused. As against this, learned Advocate Shri S.D. Patel for the respondent has urged that, on proper appreciation of the material on record, the learned trial Judge has recorded the finding that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been urged on behalf of the respondent that the learned trial Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons in support of his judgment and order of acquittal and, since the view taken by the learned trial Judge is also possible on the basis of the evidence on record, this Court need not interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal in this appeal.