The court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to prosecution's failure to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given inconsistencies and delay in evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.)

I.A. No. 1 of 2021

This is an appeal preferred by the victim. In view of proviso to Section 372 Cr.PC, there would be no need to file an application seeking leave to file an appeal against acquittal by the victim.

2. This interlocutory application is, thus, misconceived and is rejected.

I.A. No. 2 of 2024

3. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 195 days in filing of the appeal. The impugned judgment in this case has been passed on 18.03.2020. The appeal against the impugned judgment would have been preferred well within time by 17.06.2020 but due to pandemic Covid-19 situation, the appeal could not be preferred within the prescribed period of 90 days. In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 03 of 2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that the period from 24.03.2020 to 15.03.2022 shall be excluded from counting the period of limitation.

4. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there would be no need to seek condonation of delay as the appeal is to be treated within time. It has been presented in the Registry on 28.01.2021.

5. Since the appeal is to be treated within time, I.A. No. 2 of 2024 stands disposed of.

6. Heard Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

7. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 18.03.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Rohtas at Sasaram (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2011 arising out of Shiv Sagar P.S. Case No. 63 of 2010.

8. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit the Respondent Nos. 2 to 3 who were facing trial for the charges under Sections 366 and 376(D) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) giving them benefit of doubt.

Brief Facts of the Case

9. The prosecution case is based on the fardebyan of the victim, namely, ‘X’ recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police Raghu Raj Ram of Shiv Sagar Police Station in the district of Rohtas on 09.03.2010 at 16:30 Hours at Shiv Sagar Police Station. In her fardebyan, the victim (hereinafter interchangeably referred to as the ‘informant’) has alleged that on 06.03.2010 at about 07:30- 08:30 PM in the evening, she had gone to defecate towards east of her village where (1) Chintu Nat, (2) Ritesh Nat and (3) Shambhu Rai, all under some conspiracy came there and tied her hands with ‘gamchha’ and tied her mouth with her ‘odhni’. They caught hold of her and took her to east side to a rice mill which is presently run by one Akhilesh Rai. Firstly, Ritesh committed wrong with her then Shambhu and thereafter Pintu. During the alleged incident, the victim alleges to have become unconscious many a times. The victim was kept at the said place for three days and they committed rape upon her. On 08.03.2010 at about 12 O’clock, when the victim regained her consciousness and no one was present there, she escaped from the said place. The victim reached her house and told her mother that the lock of the ‘dram’ was open and she escaped from there. She also told about the incident to her mother.

10. After completion of investigation, police submitted a chargesheet against the Respondents-accused but discharged one o