STATE OF H P Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge has been made in this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in Sessions case No. 6/94 (93), on 17.6.1994, by the learned Sessions Judge under S.363, S.366 and S.376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) SH . Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently argued that the findings of the learned trial court are based on conjecture and surmises, as the same are contradictory to the material on record, particularly with respect to the age of the prosecutrix, which otherwise stood proved by leading a cogent evidence by the prosecution and also that the learned trial court also wrongly concluded that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. It is further argued that if the case of the prosecution is seen and examined in the right perspective, there are reasons and grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions of the parties in the light of the evidence produced. At the very out set, on the reappraisal of the evidence on records we would like to say that the judgment of the learned trial court cannot be faulted on any of the grounds put forth by the learned Deputy Advocate General.