JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, the State has sought leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in sessions Trial No. 18/7 of 2019, on 31st March, 2023.

2. On 25th May, 2019, a case was registered at Women Police Station, Hamirpur against the respondent under Sections 376 and 354-A of the IPC vide FIR Ex.PW14/A.

3. The case in brief as set up by the prosecution was that the prosecutrix was daughter-in-law of the respondent. She had alleged that respondent had committed rape on her for multiple times besides outraging her modesty. As per the prosecutrix, she was married to the son of respondent in July, 2018 and till the date of submission of compliant to the police, she had been raped thrice by the respondents, firstly, in the month of October, 2018, thereafter in the month of December, 2018 and lastly in April-May 2019. The prosecutrix had further alleged that she had complained about the sexual assaults made on her by the respondent to her husband and her mother-in-law, but none of them had helped her.

4. Lastly, the prosecutrix had made a complaint to her mother and the mother of the prosecutrix along with few of her relatives had visited the matrimonial house of prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had allegedly disclosed the details of misconduct on the part of the respondent to one of her female relatives. The matter was placed before the ‘Panchayat’ and on the advice of the ‘Panchayat’, the matter was reported to the police.

5. During investigation, the Medico Legal Examinations of the prosecutrix as also of respondent were conducted.

6. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was present against the respondent. He was charged for commission of offences under Section 376 (f)(n) and 354-A of the IPC.

7. The prosecution examined total 18 witnesses. The respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

8. Learned trial court did not sufficient evidence against the respondent and vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondent of all charges.

9. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the records carefully.

10. The prosecutrix appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and narrated her woes. She specifically mentioned that ugly things had started with the indecent advances shown by the respondent towards the prosecutrix. The respondent would outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix as and when he got the opportunity. In October 2018, as per the prosecutrix, she along with her husband and respondent had gone towards fields and jungle for collecting fuel wood. The husband of the prosecutrix was made to cut a tree at a particular place by the respondent and the prosecutrix was made to accompany him. The prosecutrix was thereafter raped by the respondent in the jungle despite resistance shown by her. Prosecutrix made a complaint to her husband and her mother-in-law, but without any result. In December, 2018, again the prosecutrix was raped by the respondent in a room in their house, whereas the husband and mother-in-law of the prosecutrix were stated to be engaged in some agricultural pursuits at some distance. To similar effect has the narration been made with respect to another episode of rape committed on prosecutrix by the respondent about 15-20 days prior to the lodging of complaint with the police.

11. No incriminating medical or scientific evidence was available with the prosecution against the respondent. Last incident of commission of rape on the prosecutrix by respondent was stated to have taken place about 15-20 days before the lodging of complaint. For obvious reason, there would be no medical evidence available at such a belated stage. Moreover, the prosecutrix herself has deposed in her testimony that she used to wash bed sheet on which the alleged crime was committed and also the cloth pieces with which respondent used