STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BHARAT KAUSALYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has called in question the order of acquittal dated 18.3.1996 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Gunupur in S.C. No. 6 of 1995 acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 366/354, I.P.C. Facts necessary for disposal of the above appeal runs as under:

(2.) PROSECUTION in order to bring home charges against the respondent has brought twelve witnesses to the witness box. The star witness for the prosecution are the victim P.W. 2, her friends P.Ws. 3, 9 and 10 and lastly the informant P.W. 1. Brother of the victim has been cited as P.W. 4, the co -villagers P.Ws. 5 and 6 have also been examined as a measure of providing some corroboration to the evidence of the victim. The Radiologist conducting the ossification test in P.W. 7 whereas P.W. 8 is the Medical Officer who had the occasion to examine the victim P.W. 2. Finally, the opinion having been given by the Professor, Forensic Medicines, M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, he has come to the witness box as P.W. 12. The Investigating Officer of this case has come to depose as P.W. 11. The Trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case has framed two points for consideration in order to arrive at a finding with regard to the complicity of the respondent in commission of the aforesaid crime and those are (1) whether the respondent kidnapped the victim a minor girl with intent that she may be compelled to many against her will and (2) whether the respondent used criminal force to the victim intending to outrage her modesty by such force.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State submits that the appreciation of evidence as has been made in the case by the Trial Court is improper and not inconsonance with the settled principles of law. According to him with a strenuous exercise the Court below has found out some silly reasons in saying that there arises doubt in the mind. It is his submission that such course adopted by the Trial Court is frowned upon by the settled principles of law in a case of this nature. The Trial court ought to have given some leverage while appreciating the evidence of the victim and in the absence of anything on record to show that there was any reason for the victim to falsely rope in making such allegation inviting social stigma and dent on her honour and dignity, the answers ought to have been given in the affirmative and in favour of the prosecution. In order to buttress the above submission, learned Counsel for the State has with pain placed the evidence of the victim while side by side drawing the attention of the Court to the evidence of her father (P.W. 1) and brother (P.W. 4). In summing up, he contends that the Trial Court has erred in law by acquitting the respondent and the finding being based on improper appreciation of evidence is perverse and that having caused gross miscarriage of justice, this Court's interference is called for to prevent the same.