IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases of heinous crimes like rape, and the testimony of the prosecutrix must be reliable and corroborated with medical and other evidence.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J - Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.02.1999 passed by the learned trial court in FIR No.89/96, registered at Police Station Rohini, New Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 376/34 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution, as noted in the impugned judgment, is that on the night of 26.03.1997, a PCR call was received and the Police was informed that the prosecutrix, aged 45 years, had gone to House No.17, Jaina Apartment to give food to her brother Deva Anand, however, when she did not return, her son Kailash went to the said flat and found that his mother was lying in an unconscious condition. She was taken to the DDU Hospital, where she refused to make a statement, however, upon her return to her house, she alleged to have been raped by the accused persons. On her compliant, FIR in question was got registered; accused persons were arrested; investigation mobilzed; chargesheet was filed; charge under Section 376/34 IPC was framed and the accused persons were put on trial.

3. In support of prosecution case, prosecution examined six witnesses. PW-1 Dr. Debas is doctor who had conducted medical examination of the accused; PW-2 is the prosecutrix; PW-3, Ct. Surender Kumar is Investigating Officer of this case; PW-4 Dhiraj is SOS daughter of prosecutrix; PW-5 SI Lata Sachdeva, on receipt of rukka had registered the FIR in question at CAW Cell, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi and PW-6 is the Clerk from DDU Hospital who was brought into the dock to prove the MLC of the prosecutrix.

4. After conclusion of evidence on behalf of prosecution, statement of accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein they denied the charges framed against them and pleaded innocence. They categorically stated that the prosecutrix used to have illicit relations with different men and the accused persons have been framed by her in this case. However, they did not lead any evidence in their defence.

5. The learned trial court relying upon the testimony of the witnesses recorded and based on the material placed on record inter alia held as under:-

"The prosecutrix is a fully grown lady of about 45 years of age and in the natural course of events one would expect that she should be able to resist a sexual assault. She wants to court to believe that she was made to undress without any physical assault to her tonamentors. Her statement that about half a bottle of liquor was thrust down her neck is incredible to believe. No doubt, direct evidence of rape is noever to be founded but the court must appreciate the evidence bearing in mind the human psychology and probable behaviour pattern of a person while assessing potency of the victim, namely, the prosecutrix and that of the other witness, namely, the PW Dhiraj. In my considered view the Charge of Rape is not proved against any of the accused and no the offence for that reason is proved against any of the accused. Both the accused are acquitted. They are in custody. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if no wanted in any other case. "

6. The challenge to the decision rendered by the learned trial court on behalf of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix PW-2 as well as her SOS daughter PW-4 Dhiraj have fully supported the case of the prosecution and the learned trial court has wrongly come to the conclusion that their statements were unbelievable. The stand of the prosecution is that the learned trial court has erred in holding that when accused Deva Anand started committing rape upon the prosecutrix, she lost consciousness which is highly improbable. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submitted that the decision of the trial court is contrary to the material available on record and the contradictions pointed out in the testimony of the prosecutrix are minor, which are bound to happen and the same cannot be held to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

7. To t