STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NITESH KHEMCHAND GAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1/7/2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Special Atrocity Case No.4/2009, thereby acquitting accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act . State is also aggrieved by the acquittal of accused no.1 Nitesh for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Prosecution case, in brief, is that one Bapurao Naik lodged report (Exh. 41) on 31/5/2008 stating that on that day, both accused had come on motor-cycle at 12.30 hours. Accused no.1 Nitesh talked with prosecutrix and took her away on his bike. On the basis of the said report, initially offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act came to be registered vide Crime No. 91/2008. During investigation, accused and prosecutrix were searched and were found on 16/9/2008. After statement of prosecutrix was recorded, offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code also came to be added against accused no.1 Nitesh. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandgaon Khd. Since the case was exclusively triable by learned Sessions Judge, same came to be committed to the Sessions Court. Charge was framed vide Exh. 3. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On the conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge passed the order of acquittal as aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, State has preferred this appeal.

(3.) We have heard Shri Ukey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant, and Shri Dhande, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. The scope of interference in the appeal against acquittal has been very well crystallized. The interference is warranted only when it is found that the view taken by learned trial Judge is perverse or impossible.