The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the court will consider all evidence and circumstances to determine guilt or innocence.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. The present leave petition has been preferred by the petitioner-State under the provisions of Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 28.05.2019 passed by the learned trial court in FIR No.347/2008, registered at Police Station Bawana, Outer District, Delhi, whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363/366/376/377/506/342/34 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the present case, as narrated in the present petition, are that on 13-14.06.2006, the prosecutrix, who was studying in class VII, was going to her school. The respondent No.1/accused-Mahadev proposed her for friendship, however, when as she refused, he felt offended and one day, he forcibly put her in a car and committed rape upon her. The prosecutrix was dropped at some distance near the market and since respondent No.1/accused had threatened her of life, she felt frightened and did not disclose it to anyone, including her family members. The prosecutrix was once again dragged into the car by respondent No.1/accused while she was going to market. He took her to a deserted place and committed rape upon her. Respondent No.1/accused promised her of marriage and on this assurance, he took her to Mukundpur and kept her in illegal confinement where he daily raped her. After a week, parents of the accused came there and finding her in their house, kept her in their illegal confinement. The prosectrix became pregnant and gave birth to a female child. She was not allowed to step out of the house. She was also raped by father of respondent No.1/accused in May, 2008, which was duly supported by his wife, respondent No.2-Jai Shree. Even one of the friends of respondent No.1-accused also committed rape upon her.

3. The prosecutrix wanted to commit suicide. However, one day while respondent No.2-Jai Shree had left the door slightly opened, the prosecutrix along with her child left the house and reached her parent's home. She disclosed the whole incident to her mother and lodged a complaint at police station Shahbad, Delhi, however, no action was taken. So, the prosecutrix filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the directions of the court, FIR in question was registered at the police station Shahbad, Delhi.

4. The statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. On her complaint, respondent No.1-accused was arrested. The investigation with regard to the age of the prosecutrix was carried out and she was also medically examined. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against respondent No.1-accused Mahadev and his mother, respondent No.2-Jaishree and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

5. The court of Sessions framed charges under Sections 363/366/376/ 377/506(ii) IPC and Section 344 read with Section 34 IPC against respondent No.1/accused-Mahavir. The charge under Section 342 read with Section 120-B IPC and Sections 344/34 IPC was framed against respondent No.2/accused-Jai Devi. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses in support of its case. Respondents-accused in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charges levelled against them and examined eight witnesses in support of their case.

7. In view of the evidence and material placed on record, the learned court of Sessions acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges framed against them. It is against the acquittal of respondents/accused, the present petition has been preferred by petitioner-State seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of petitioner-State submitted that the impugned judgment is based upon presumptions and surmises and the learned trial court did not correctly consider the evidence pla