STATE OF RAJ Vs. ROHITASH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed these three criminal appeals after grant of leave to appeal by this Court. THEse appeals arise out of three separate judgments delivered by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, in three different Sessions cases which arose out of three first information reports lodged by three victims,nomcly, Meena Kumari, Sindoor Bai & Fatima with the allegations that Rohitash Kumar (respondent in these appeals) had committed sexual intercourse forcibly upon their persons while they were residing in the Rescue Home situated at Bharatpur & maintained by the Social Welfare Department of Rajasthan, in between July 27 and September 27, 1981.

(2.) AT joint request of both the parties, since the grounds of acquittal assigned by the trial Court under impugned judgements are similar and identical in favour of the respondent who was accused in the three cases out of which the present appeals arise, these three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) AGAIN, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Lalit Kumar Sharma Vs. Supdt. & Rememberancer of Legal Affairs, Govt. of West Bengal (6) while following one of the decisions on the context in Mathai Mathews vs. State of Maharashtra ( 7) pointed out that the power of an appellate Court to review evidence in appeals against acquittal is an extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions, but that power is with a note of caution that the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the orders of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to do so. According to the decision in Mathai Mathews vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), if a finding reached by the trial Judge cannot be said to be an unreasonable finding, then the appellate court should not disturb that finding even if it is possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the material on record.