XYZ Vs. MAHESH SUBHSH TAMBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking provisions under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, original informant is seeking quashment and setting aside of the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Vaijapur, District Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2016.

(2.) Prosecution was launched against present respondent No.1 alleging that respondent No.1 was residing in appellant- informant's locality. By issuing threats to kill her brother and expressing his desire to marry her, respondent no.1 raped her on several occasions. That, prosecutrix succumbed to the threat and pressure and did not promptly inform to anyone. However, finally she mustered courage and approached police on 31/1/2015, alleging commission of offence under Sec. 376(2)(n) and 506 of Indian Penal Code. In above backdrop, accused-respondent No.1 was arrested and after completing investigation, he was charge-sheeted and he was made to face trial. After hearing both, prosecution as well as defence, learned trial Judge by judgment and order dtd. 28/11/2019, acquitted accused and hence present appeal by informant. SUBMISSIONS

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant would point out that prosecution had gone for trial with full-proof evidence i.e. there was testimony of prosecutrix herself which was inspiring confidence. The same has not been properly considered and appreciated by the learned trial Judge. There was corroboration also in the form of testimony of PW-2 mother of informant. That, it was established by prosecution that in January 2015, by issuing threats accused had forcible sexual intercourse against her will. There is medical evidence in that regard. But, the same has not been considered by the trial court. Learned counsel for appellant pointed out that it is settled law that sole testimony of prosecutrix, if inspires confidence, is sufficient to bring home the charges. The facts in the case in hand were also identical and here prosecutrix had deposed about the act committed against her will by accused. Therefore, conviction ought to have been recorded and the same had not been done by the learned trial Judge. It is submitted that the said judgment and order is required to be set aside by allowing the appeal.