STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HANMANTA BHIKU KHAIRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against acquittal of the accused from offences under section 376 of Indian Penal Code against accused No. 1 and under sections 354 and 376 against accused No. 2.

(2.) AT the outset the learned Counsel for the accused contended that since this is an appeal against acquittal, the Court was required to find out whether the judgment of the trial Court was full of perversity or whether the conclusions arrived upon by the trial Court were not based on legal evidence and contrary to the facts. He contended that merely because this Court can take a different view of the matter would not be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. There cannot be any dispute about the legal and settled position that Appellate Court can interfere with the order of the acquittal only if the legal requirements are satisfied.

(3.) THE learned A. P. P. on the other hand contended that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse in as much as the trial Court has not at all considered why a minor girl of 12 years age should implicate a person in such a heinous offence. Further according to the learned A. P. P. the trial Court did not take into consideration the fact that F. I. R. was lodged very promptly, the names of the accused were named in the F. I. R. that there was no question of identifying the accused and the evidence of the complainant consistent with the evidence given by the other two witnesses. So far as medical evidence is concerned, the learned A. P. P. contended that if the evidence of the minor was inspiring confidence and if the defence has no explanation at all as to why they should be implicated falsely than the case of the prosecution was liable to be accepted. The learned A. P. P. further contended that absence of injuries on the person of victim in a rape case was not at all conclusive of innocence of the accused or was not at all indicative of falsity of the charge of the prosecution. He further contended that approach of the trial Court is one sided and important and vital aspects have not at all been given their due and legally permissible weightage.