B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

2. The petitioner/accused has approached this Court being aggrieved by the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 2012, dated 19.12.2015, whereby it has been observed that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

3. The petitioner in the year 2002 used to take tuition classes for M.P.S.C. The prosecutrix namely Vaishali Bapuraoji Sonkusare (PW-3) had joined the tuition classes of the petitioner in the month of January, 2007. At that time, the petitioner had passed U.P.S.C. examination. It was the case of the prosecutrix that though she was doing a Private Job, she was compelled by the petitioner to leave the said job. It was her further case that the accused had taken a room on rent for the prosecutrix and he committed sexual intercourse with her on various occasions. It is further case that, in the year 2008, the prosecutrix was selected in Police Force and was in the Training Institute. It is her further case that, even in the Training Institute, the petitioner used to visit and to have sexual intercourse with her. Out of the said relationship, the prosecutrix had become pregnant and therefore, the petitioner took her for termination of pregnancy. A First Information Report came to be lodged on 28.1.2011 by the prosecutrix making all the aforesaid allegations. At the time of framing of charge in the trial Court, the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge found that the evidence of prosecutrix was of not such a nature on the basis of which a conviction could be rested without there being any corroboration. The learned trial Judge, however, observed that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt and as such, acquitted him. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition.

4. Heard Mr. A.B. Moon, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.J. Khan, learned A.P.P. for the respondents.

5. Mr. A.B. Moon, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the learned trial Judge has found that the version of the prosecutrix was not reliable, the observation of the learned trial Judge that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt is unjust. He submits that, on account of said observation, the petitioner may suffer various hardships. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner would be without any remedy inasmuch as since he has been acquitted, he even could not prefer appeal against the said observation of the trial Judge.

6. Mr. M.J. Khan, learned A.P.P. on the contrary, submits that the petition itself is not tenable. He submits that there is no distinction between Hon'ble acquittal and acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. He submits that dismissal of the petitioner from service is on the basis of departmental proceedings and it has nothing to do with conviction or acquittal of the petitioner.

7. We have perused the Judgment and Order passed by the learned trial Judge. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of the learned trial Judge:

"In view of aforesaid discussion, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, cannot be accepted safely, which is suffering from the serious legal infirmities like contradiction, omission and exaggeration. It also appears that she has deposed in colourful form and much improved her statement while giving the evidence, therefore, such evidence cannot be relied upon safely, for convicting the accused." (Para 33 - Page 167).

"Summing up, I find that as per the evidence on record, the prosecution has failed in its boundant duty to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that the version of victim, in rape case, commands great respect and acceptability, but if there are some circumstances which cast some doubt in the mind of court of the veracity of victim's evidence, then, it is not safe to rely on the uncorroborated version of the victim of