The presumption of innocence remains strong unless compelling evidence demonstrates otherwise, particularly in cases of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Surguja (Ambikapur), C.G. in Sessions Trial No.230/2012, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted respondent No.1- Thurra @ Sukhnath of the charge under Sections 342 , 366 and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and respondent No.2- Laxman Korva of the charge under Section 366 (d) of IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.04.2012, while prosecutrix (PW-1) was returning home from the house of one Ramlal, on way, respondent No.1-Thurra @ Sukhnath stopped her, forcibly took her inside the house of Ramlal, locked the door from inside and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and when she raised cries for help, respondent No.1-Thurra @ Sukhnath gagged her mouth. Thereafter, on the same day, at about 7:00 pm, respondent No.1 took her to the house of respondent No.2- Laxman at Maheshpur and borrowed his motorcycle and from there, respondent No.1 along with prosecutrix and respondent No.2 went to his brother-in-law's house at village Katkalo where also respondent No.1-Thurra @ Sukhnath committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. After that, on 28.04.2012, prosecutrix was brought home by her brother and brother-in-law, to whom, she narrated the incident and thereafter, on 04.05.2012, she lodged an FIR (Ex.P-1) against the respondents at Police Station Sitapur.

3. During investigation, on her consent (Ex.P-2), prosecutrix was sent for medical examination where Dr. S.P. (PW-5) examined her and did not notice any sign of recent forcible sexual intercourse with her nor did find any sign of injury over the body of the prosecutrix either internally or externally and gave her MLC report vide Ex.P-11A. Undergarments of prosecutrix and respondent No.1 were seized vide Exs.P-3 and P-6 respectively. Vide Ex.P-7, motorcycle of respondent No.2- Laxman and other relevant papers were seized. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-21), no seminal spots and human spermatozoa have been found on the articles marked as “A, B & C”, i.e. undergarments of prosecutrix and respondent No.1 as well as slide of prosecutrix.

4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. Accused/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 21 documents connecting the respondents/accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, respondents/accused persons have examined none and not exhibited any document.

6. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of said charges leveled against them.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would vehemently submit that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents herein of said charges by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that there is ample evidence on record to show that accused persons/respondents have abducted the prosecutrix and respondent No.1- Thurra @ Sukhnath committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, which is also evident from the statements of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses and despite that, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct pers