STATE OF J&K Vs. MAHAVIR PASWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons mentioned in the instant application and those urged at the time of arguments, delay of 138 days' in filing the acquittal appeal is condoned. Condonation application stands disposed of.

(2.) Aggrieved of the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2014 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Fast Track Court) in Sessions File No. 48 titled State v. Mahavir Paswan, by virtue whereof the respondent Mahavir Paswan (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') has been acquitted of offence under Sections 363//366/376 RPC, the State seeks Special Leave to file appeal questioning the impugned judgment of acquittal on the ground that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its correct perspective and that the circumstances corroborated by medical report sufficiently established guilt of the accused.

(3.) Prosecution case is that on 04.02.2012, one Sudagar Ram father of the prosecutrix lodged a missing report at Police Station, Miran Sahib alleging therein that his minor daughter did not return from the market where she had gone to purchase household articles on 03.02.2012. According to him prosecutrix was 16 years old. Report was recorded as entry No. 12 in the "Daily Diary Register" of the Police Station Miran Sahib. Subsequently, he lodged a written complaint on 05.02.2012 alleging kidnapping of his daughter by the accused who was alleged to have taken her to some unknown place. Case under FIR No. 17/2012 for offence under Section 363 RPC came to be registered at Police Station Miran Sahib. The investigation ensued. Prosecutrix was recovered on 08.02.2012 from the house of sister of accused situated at Village Naranga, District Sita Marhi, Bihar. The investigation culminated in filing of charge sheet against the accused, who pleaded not guilty to charges framed against him for offence under Sections 363/366/376 RPC and claimed to be tried. Five witnesses were examined by prosecution to bring home guilt of the accused. In his examination u/s. 342 Cr.PC., the accused denied the allegations leveled by prosecution witnesses and pleaded false implication. He did not enter upon his defence. Based on consideration of evidence brought on record by prosecution at the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence; that there was nothing to show that the accused induced the prosecutrix and prompted her to leave the house of her father. Thus, the Trial Court found that it was a case of elopement and no offence of rape was made out against the accused.