STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NANURAM S/O LICHHURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and the record.

(2.) The instant application has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan under Section 378(iii) and (i) Cr.P.C. craving leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 24.5.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 7/2015 whereby, the accused respondent was acquitted of the charges under Sections 457 and 376/511 f.

(3.) The prosecution came out with a case that on the night of 6.5.2014 whilst the prosecutrix Smt. K was sleeping at her father's house in Village Simsiya and her parents were sleeping nearby her, the respondent Nanuram her neighbour came in the courtyard and pulled her saree and fell on top of her. The prosecutrix raised a hue and cry on which her parents woke up and Nanuram ran away. She alleged that Nanuram tried to force himself upon her. FIR was lodged at P.S. Rajaldesar on 8.5.2014. In cross examination, the prosecutrix stated that gate of house was locked from inside and the respondent Nanuram scaled the wall and came inside the house. She denied knowledge of any dispute existing between the respondent Nanuram and her father and controverted the suggestion that a false case of attempted rape had been foisted against the accused on account of enmity. Maghi Devi mother of the prosecutrix alleged that she and her husband were sleeping besides the prosecutrix on the fateful night. The prosecutrix raised a hue and cry on which her father woke up. Thereafter, the witness herself woke up. They saw that the prosecutrix's clothes were in a disheveled condition. Upon enquiry, the prosecutrix told that Nanuram had come into the house. The witness claims that she saw Nanuram escaping wearing only an underwear. She further stated that the prosecutrix was previously suffering from schizophrenia and was provided treatment for the same. The witness also admitted that she and the accused belong to the same family and that her family and family of the accused were not on talking terms. Upon conclusion of proceedings, the trial Court found that FIR was lodged after significant delay. The evidence collected during investigation was suggestive of the fact that there was a dispute going on between the parties over a right of way. The allegations set up in the belated report that the accused concealed his presence and managed to trespass into the complainant's house after scaling the wall was unbelievable and thereby, accused respondent was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.