The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with an acquittal, especially when the prosecution fails to prove the essential elements of the alleged offenses.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT B. BORKAR, J.

This is an appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by State of Maharashtra challenging the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Akola, dated 16-11-2013 in Sessions Trial No.90/2008, acquitting the accused of charge for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:-

The prosecutrix was staying along with her parents at village Kothali (Bk.). The accused Vishnu and Siddhu are interse brothers. Accused Tulshiram and Accused Rukminibai are their parents. They are also staying in village Kothali in the same locality. The prosecutrix was working in the field of the accused. It is alleged that the incident occurred two years prior to lodging of report. The prosecutrix had gone to the house of the accused for work. The accused Vishnu was alone in the house. It is alleged that the accused Vishnu caught hold of the prosecutrix forcibly and made her to lie on the floor, removed her clothes and committed rape on her. She tried to raise alarm but, the accused Vishnu gagged her mouth and gave her threat of killing and forced her not to tell the incident to anyone. After this incident, the accused Vishnu subjected her to sexual assault on several times. Vishnu was promising her that he would marry with her. While the prosecutrix was carrying seventh month, her parents made enquiry with her about pregnancy. She told that she is pregnant from the accused Vishnu. Thereafter, her parents went to the house of the accused. The accused persons promised her that they would perform marriage of Vishnu with the prosecutrix after delivery. The prosecutrix gave birth to a male child on 1-10-2007. The parents of the prosecutrix gave information of birth of male child to the accused. The accused Vishnu told them that he will perform marriage after 11/4 months. On 10-11-2007 at about 9:00 a.m., the prosecutrix alongwith her newly born son went to the house of the accused, but they did not allow her to enter into their house and also abused her. After two days, the prosecutrix lodged report with the Police Station. On the basis of the said report, offence bearing Crime No.106/2007 under Sections 376, 417, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against the accused. P.S.I. Tripathi, Investigating Officer carried out the investigation. He recorded statements of the witnesses and also seized blood samples of the prosecutrix, her son and the accused Vishnu and sent it to the chemical analysis. During the course of investigation, it was transpired that the accused Vishnu committed rape on the prosecutrix by promising her of marriage and the accused persons refused to perform marriage and thereby heated the prosecutrix. Chargesheet came to be filed against them in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barshitakli, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, in accordance with the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The learned Sessions Judge framed Charge against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in their vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial and false implication.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined six witnesses. The learned Trial Court disbelieved the testimony of the prosecutrix and other material on the record to prove charges levelled against the accused and acquitted all the accused of all charges. The State has, therefore, filed present appeal against acquittal.

5. Addressing arguments on behalf of the State, Shri S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant, submitted that the learned Trial Judge failed to give due weightage to the testimony of the prosecutrix, who in her deposition unequivocall