AMBA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition has been filed by the complaint-petitioner against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 7. 6. 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal in Sessions Case No. 34/2000 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge had acquitted the accused respondent No. 2 for offence under Sections 266, 344 and 376 I. P. C.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances:- i) That on 21. 2. 2000, P. W. 7 Bharat lodged a report (Ex. P/13) before the SHO, Police Station, Bhinmal stating that he along with Lata Kumari alias Paru (P. W. 5), aged about 16 years (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) who was daughter of his uncle Amba Lal (P. W. 8), had come to Jaswanpura from Ahmedabad for attending "samuhik Vivah" on 11. 2. 2000 and stayed in the house of Hansaji. IT was further stated in the report (Ex. P/13) that from the evening of 13. 2. 2000, prosecutrix (Lata Kumari) was not found in Bhinmal, on which after making enquiry at Ahmedabad and searching the prosecutrix P. W. 5 Lata Kumari and after informing P. W. 8 Amba Lal, he lodged that report (Ex. P/13) on 21. 2. 2000. ii) Further case of the prosecution is that thereafter P. W. 8 Amba lal lodged a written report (Ex. P/11) on 13. 5. 2000 before the SHO, Police Station Bhinmal stating that the prosecutrix P. W. 5 Lata Kumari returned back to Ahmedabad on 12. 5. 2000 and she had stated that in the evening of 13. 2. 2000, the accused respondent took he prosecutrix after threatening her from Bhinmal to Ahmedabad and where he kept her in a room for three days and thereafter he took her to a village in Madras and thereafter the accused respondent took her again to Ahmedabad and when P. W. 5 Lata Kumar (Prosecutrix) got the chance, she came to her parents on 12. 5. 2000 and during this time, the accused respondent committed forcible intercourse with her many a times. iii) On this report (Ex. P//11) regular FIR (Ex. P/12) was chalked out for offences under Sections 366, 344, and 376 I. P. C. and after usual investigation, challan was filed against the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences. iv) On 30. 8. 2000, charges were framed against the accused respondent for offences under Sections 366, 344 and 376 I. P. C. v) That during the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case and the statement of accused respondent was recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. on 9. 1. 2002 and one witness was examined in defence. vi) at the conclusion no trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge through judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 7. 6. 2002 acquitted the accused respondent for offence under Sections 366, 344 and 376 I. P. C. inter alia holding: i) That the prosecutrix P. W. 5 Lata Kumari was above the age of 18 years and for that he has placed reliance on Transfer Certificate (Ex. D/3) issued by Jai Bharat Vidhyalaya wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix Lata Kumari (PW. 5) was shown as 1. 9. 81. ii) That the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not place reliance on the statement of prosecutrix Lata Kumari (P. W. 5) and found the case of consent taking into consideration the various factors i. e. her marriage with the accused respondent on 2. 3. 2000 and for that there is marriage certificate (Ex. D/17) and she has remained in the company of accused respondent for about three months. (vii) aggrieved from the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 7. 6. 2002 the complainant - petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Kishan Swaroop vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi (2), has observed that it is open to the High Court in revision to set aside an acquittal order even at the instance of a private parties, even though the State may not have through fit to appeal but this jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is some defect in the procedure or there is manifest error of a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.