STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHANDRASINGH GIRWARSINGH THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State against judgment and order dated 26.09.2000 in Sessions Trial No. 11/1997 passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Amravati by which the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted of the charge framed against them under section 376(g) of the I.P.C.

(2.) IN support of the appeal against acquittal, Mrs. Joshi, learned A.P.P. for the State, vehemently argued that the evidence of PW1 -Hamidabi has been wrongly rejected by the court below. Taking us through the evidence of PW1 -Hamidabi, she argued that her evidence has remained unshaken and that being so, the trial court ought to have made an order of conviction for the offence of gang rape which is a serious offence. She then argued that the trial court refused to rely on the other evidence corroborating the evidence of PW1 -Hamidabi. According to her, the evidence of PW1 -Hamidabi being consistent and she being the victim, the same ought to have been accepted and conviction ought to have been recorded. She thus prayed for setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.

(3.) WE have compared the reasons recorded in para 12 with the evidence of PW1 -Hamidabi so also report Exh. -43. We do not find any perversity on the part of the trial Court in the matter of marshalling of her evidence. That apart, the apex Court has time and again set out the principles about interference by the High Court in the appeal against acquittal. We think, acting in consonance with the said principles and looking to the medical evidence so also for want of evidence about penetration, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the order of acquittal.