STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MAHAVIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-State has preferred this leave to appeal under Sec. 378(iii) and (i) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') to challenge the judgment dated 11.06.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby learned trial Court has acquitted accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution story, in nutshell, as unfurled from report dated 08.09.2010 (Ex.P/10), is that complainant Bundu Khan (P.W.4) submitted missing report of prosecutrix Ms. 'R', precisely, with the averments that she is mentally weak and left the home at 3.00 a.m. in the night and has not been traced out despite efforts. Subsequently, P.W.4 lodged yet another report on 20.09.2010 (Ex.P/7) wherein it is alleged that Ms.'R' was taken by accused-respondent and three other incumbents, namely, Rafiq, Deenaram and Shaitan Ram by misguiding her and all of them molested and misbehaved with her. In order to show that Ms. 'R' is minor, school T.C. is also enclosed with the report. On investigation, FIR No. 42/2010 was registered for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 Penal Code and challan was submitted against the accused-respondent alone for the aforesaid offences before the Judicial Magistrate, Jayal. The Judicial Magistrate, thereafter, committed the case to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused-respondent for the offences under Sec. 363, 366-A & 376 Penal Code on 18.04.2011. To bring home guilt against the accused, prosecution examined in all eighteen witnesses and also produced umpteen documents which were exhibited. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused-respondent under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. were recorded and in defence respondent produced three documents in evidence however no oral evidence was tendered.

(3.) Learned trial Court, thereafter, examined the matter in its entirety, and on analysing the prosecution evidence, including the medical evidence, has seriously doubted the age of prosecutrix and also the fact that she was abducted and molested by the accused-respondent. In the considered opinion of the learned trial Court, it appears highly improbable that accused-respondent had abducted the prosecutrix and ravished her against her will. While dilating on the age of the prosecutrix, learned trial Court has opined that the entry made in school register, which is not founded on information furnished by the parents or any other person having any special knowledge about the date of birth, carries no evidentiary value and the same cannot be relied upon. Even on examining the medical evidence wherein the Medical Jurist, Dr. Yogendra Negi (P.W.14) has though opined the age of prosecutrix to be between 16 to 18, has very candidly admitted that for ascertaining her age no radiological test was performed. The witness has further admitted that actual age can be ascertained only after radiological examination of the bones of the incumbents. In totality, the so-called incriminating material, in the form of the prosecution witnesses, has not impressed the learned trial Court to bring home guilt against the accused for the alleged offences and that eventually facilitated acquittal of the accused-respondent by extending benefit of doubt.