VIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, brother of Hem Kanwar alias Pinky seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 21.8.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur rendered in Sessions Case No.27/2008 under Sections 366, 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') acquitting the respondent No.2 herein.

(2.) I have heard Mr.R.K.Daga, learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner, Ms.Alka Bhatnagar, Additional Government Advocate and Mr.M.C.Jain learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

(3.) MR .R.K.Daga, learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically argued that having regard to the dates of the incident and filing of the FIR, no delay as such was involved. Further, as the statement of the prosecutrix, in particular, made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her testimony at the trial would reveal, she was not a consenting party. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is, on the face of it, unsustainable in law and on facts. Mr.Daga has insisted that on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court could, by no means, accord acquittal to the respondent No.2 and as conclusions leading to that consequence are the yield of total disregard of the materials on record, it is a fit case where the impugned judgment and order ought to be interfered with. In his endeavour to endorse these pleas, the learned counsel has taken the Court through the FIR and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in course of the trial. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh and Ors, AIR 1996 SC 1393 and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Asha Ram, AIR 2006 SC 381.