The importance of corroborating the evidence of the prosecutrix with scientific evidence in cases of rape, and the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused in acquittal appeals.

JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA M. SAREEN, J.

1. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 01.06.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana Camp at Patan in Sessions Case No. 166 of 1995 acquitting the respondent-original accused from the offence punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code, however, convicted the respondent for the offence punishable under section 376 read with section 511 of Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. Factual matrix of the prosecution case is as under:

As per the case of the prosecution, the allegations levelled in the FIR being CR No. I-73 of 1995 are that on 16.04.1995 at around 2.00 P.M. while Bhartiben Jagmalbhai-complainant went to graze the goats on the bank of river near Hardeshwar Mahadev, the accused came there and asked her to have physical relation with her, to which, the complainant denied. It is further alleged in the complaint that, however, the accused forcibly committed rape on her and went away. After that at around 4.00 P.M. the complainant came back to her home but did not tell about the alleged incident to her parents and after 4 to 5 days, she narrated the alleged incident to her aunts-Lavangben and Manjuben and her grandmother-Tejiben and thereafter complaint came to be filed on 20.04.1995.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was started and during the investigation, the accused was arrested on 25.04.1995, statement of witnesses were recorded, panchnama of scene of offence was carried out and after through investigation, as there was sufficient evidence against the respondent-accused, Charge-sheet was filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence committed by the accused person was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions as per the provisions of Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Judge was pleased to commit the case to the Court of Sessions and the case was transferred and placed for trial in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, which has been numbered as Sessions Case No. 166 of 1995. Thereafter, Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code. The accused person pleaded not guilty to the Charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, laid evidence, oral as well as documentary. After the evidence was over, Further Statement of the respondent-accused was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and arguments were heard. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused for the charge levelled against him. Hence, the appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal.

4. Heard Ms. Divyangna Jhala, learned APP for the State and Mr. Nasir Saiyed, learned advocate for the respondent accused.

5. Ms. Divyangna Jhala, learned APP has vehemently submitted that the Sessions Court has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the prosecutrix and witnesses examined by the prosecution. She has further submitted that victim has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that the accused has committed rape on her. She further submitted that the Sessions Court has erred in acquitting the respondent-accused from the charge levelled against him. She has further argued that the prosecution has proved that the respondent has committed offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code. She has further argued that Sessions Court has acquitted the respondent accused merely on some minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecutrix and witnesses. She has further argued that the trial court has erred i