Point of Law: An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

By way of present application, the applicant-State has sought the permission to assail the judgment of acquittal dated 01.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Trial No. 29/21/14.

2. By way of judgment of acquittal, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) for the offence punishable under Sections 451, 354, 354A & 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The requisite leave to appeal has been sought on the grounds that the applicant is having a good and arguable case and there is every possibility that the appeal filed by the State will be accepted by this Court. The judgment of acquittal is also stated to be against the law and facts on record and the same has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on surmises and conjectures.

4. On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the application, by granting leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal.

5. Record has been perused.

6. The prosecution story, as divulged from the record, is that on 28.01.2018 at about 7.00 p.m. in village Kango-ka-Galu, Tehsil Sarkaghat, the accused allegedly committed the house trespass and requested the prosecutrix to remove her clothes. He kissed her. When the prosecutrix refused to dance on the tunes of the accused, then he i.e. accused had left the spot. The prosecutrix, thereafter, reported the matter to the police. On 29.01.2018, the prosecutrix, made another application alleging rape against accused. After the completion of the investigation, the police has filed the chargesheet against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376, 451, 354 and 354A IPC. On the basis of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the learned trial Court charge-sheeted the accused, accordingly, on 23.06.2018.

7. Thereafter, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. Consequently, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses.

8. The learned trial Court has passed the judgment of acquittal, after concluding that the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-9 is not confidence inspiring.

9. The prosecutrix, when appeared in the witness box, has deposed that on 27.01.2017 when she was present in her house, then accused came there and offered her Pakoda and toffees. When she had refused to eat those articles and went inside her room, then accused pushed her, removed her salwar and ravished her. Whereas, in the complaint Ext. PW- 2/A, she has disclosed that on 28.01.2018 at about 7.00 p.m. when accused came to her house, at that time, her mother-in-law was not in the house and the accused had teased her and kissed her. The accused allegedly requested/directed the prosecutrix to remove her clothes. On the refusal of the prosecutrix, he had left the place.

10. On the basis of above facts, the learned trial Court has held that the statement of the prosecutrix is entirely inconsistent with the report lodged with the police. Highlighting the fact that the prosecutrix, in her cross-examination, has admitted that the application Ext.PW-2/C was written in the police station by the police official, as such, the learned trial Court has held that there are material contradictions and the evidence of the prosecutrix has been stated to be unbelievable.

11. Perusal of the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C Ext. PW-2/A shows that the prosecutrix had got recorded that on 28.01.2018 at about 7.00 p.m. when she was present in her house, then accused came there and started teasing her. According to her further deposition, accused kissed her and requested her to remove her clothes. At that time, her mother-in-law was not present. According to the prosecutrix, when she had refused to accept his request, then accused left the spot. Thereafter, she had disclosed this fact to her husband on phone.

12. Admittedly, no allegation with reg