DHANNA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the petitioner, father of the prosecutrix, against the judgment and order dated 19.4.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) in Sessions Case No. 69/1996 (26/95), wherein the respondents No. 2 and 3 though charged u/Ss. 366 & 376 IPC, had been acquitted at the end of the trial. I have heard Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.R. Nikub, learned P.P., Mr. AX Acharya, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3.

(2.) The FIR dated 6.10.1995 lodged by the petitioner with the Officer incharge, Police Station, Merta alleging that the respondents had enticed away his minor daughter Hapudi alias Santosh, aged about 14 years on 2.10.1995, was registered and on completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the respondents No. 2 and 3 for the offences u/Ss. 366 & 376 IPC. They denied the charge. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses including the informant PW-3 Dhanna Ram, the prosecutrix PW-5 Hapudi and Dr. Satyadev Singh Mehta, PW-6, who had conducted the medical examination for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any offence of rape had been committed on her. PW-2 Dr. Tulchha Ram Choudhary, who had examined her to medically ascertain her age, was also produced as a witness. The accused respondents, on completion, of recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court by the judgment and order impugned herein acquitted them of the charges.

(3.) Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued with reference to the FIR Ex. P.11 as well as the evidence of Dr. Tulchha Ram Choudhary (PW 2) that as would be apparent therefrom that at the relevant point of time, the prosecutrix was aged between 14 to 16 years, the finding recorded by the learned court below that it was 18 years and above, is perverse. Placing reliance on the FIR as well as the evidence of father of the prosecutrix, learned counsel has sought to justify the marginal delay in the matter of filing of FIR on 6.10.1995. According to him, as understandably the FIR has been lodged by the father of the prosecutrix in connection with his missing daughter only after exhausting all possible means to ascertain her whereabouts, the learned trial court had grossly erred in rejecting the case of the prosecution on the ground of delay. He also urged that a plain reading of the testimony of the prosecutrix PW 5 Hapudi did prove the offence of abduction and rape against the respondents No. 2 and 3 and, therefore, the conclusion of the learned trial court with regard to the inconsistencies in her evidence not only is borne out by the records but also renders their acquittal patently illegal requiring the interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant medical reports on the count of age of the prosecutrix and also the injuries in her private parts demonstrating in unequivocal terms the commission of offence of rape on her immediately prior to her recovery on 7.10.1995.