RAMPYARI BAI Vs. STATE OF M. P ,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has preferred this revision petition under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Guna in Special Sessions Trial No. 32/06, whereby the respondents No. 2 and 3 have been acquitted from the charges under sections 376 (2) (g) and 352 of IPC read with section 3(1) (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the respondents/accused.

(3.) DURING trial, the petitioner/prosecutrix examined herself as PW 4, mother-in-law Dhaniya Bai as PW 5, and her husband Lallu as PW 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence of the material witnesses particularly petitioner/prosecutrix (PW 4) and Dhaniya Bai (PW 5) found that their statements are full of material omissions, contradictions and exaggerations and held that their evidence is not at all reliable. The evidence of previous enmity between the husband of the petitioner and the accused- persons is also available on record. The trial Court has also found that earlier the prosecutrix had also lodged the report of similar nature against the accused-persons and the case of rape was registered against them but after trial, the accused persons were acquitted. In the cross-examination, the petitioner/prosecutrix (PW 4) has admitted that Sharmila who is wife of her brother-in-law (Dever) Pamma, has also lodged the report against one Hari chamar for committing rape with her alongwith 3-4 persons, when she had gone to meet her husband in the jail. Pamma is also accused in a different rape case which is also pending in the Court of Ashoknagar. Therefore, it was contended that whole family is involved in rape cases.