The central legal point established in the judgment is the standard for conviction in a rape case based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the appellate court's discretion in interfering with an order of acquittal.

Alok Aradhe, J.

Condl(CR) No.38/2016:

1. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and for the reasons assigned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, we find sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 99 is made out. Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. In the result, Cond(CR) N.38/2016 is allowed.

SLAA No.39/2016:

Mr. Sanjeev Padha, GA for the appellant.

Heard.

Permission to file the appeal is granted.

CRAA No.40/2017:

Heard. This criminal acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.09.2015 passed by the trial Court by which the respondent has been acquitted for an offence under Section 376 of the RPC.

2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on 27.04.2011 at about 5.30 PM in the evening when the family members of the prosecutrix including her parents had gone to the field for collecting the wheat crop, the accused entered the house of the prosecutrix and asked her for cold water. The prosecutrix went inside for bringing cold water from the Refrigerator and the accused also followed her and closed the door of the room and then committed the offence of rape on her. After the offence was committed, the prosecutrix called her mother from her mobile and thereupon the parents of the prosecutrix immediately rushed to their house. On the next day, father of the prosecutrix lodged a complaint which was registered as FIR and an offence under Section 376 of the RPC was registered against the respondent. Police after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against the respondent and the trial Court vide impugned judgment has acquitted the respondent of the offence alleged against them.

3. Learned Government Advocate for the State has submitted that the Trial Court grossly erred in relying on the testimony of the prosecutrix and ought to have appreciated that the prosecution in an offence under Section 376 can rest upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court.

4. We have considered the submissions made by learned government advocate and have perused the record. The case of the prosecution rests upon the testimonies of prosecutrix, her mother-PW2, and father-PW3. It is pertinent to note that Dr. Anil Mehta, Gynecologist was examined as PW-9 who in his report has stated that no injury on the private part of the prosecutrix was found and there was no mark of any injury on the other parts of the body of the prosecutrix. He has further opined that there is no evidence of any recent sexual intercourse. Thus, the medical evidence placed on record does not support the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court in paragraph 27 of the judgment has taken note of the well settled legal principle that conviction in a rape case can be founded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix unless there are compelling reasons for seeking its corroboration. The prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164-A of the Cr.PC had given a different version with regard to the alleged offence in which she had stated ‘jinah bil jabar’ on her. However, in the cross examination before the Court, the prosecutrix has deposed that she does not understand the meaning of ‘jinah bil jabar’. It has also been stated by her before the Court that her parents had reached the place of occurrence after twenty minutes of the occurrence but she has nowhere stated that she was lying on the bed as was stated by her in her statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr.PC. The statement of the prosecution is inconsistent and suffers from the infirmities.

5. PW-2, Taro Devi, mother of the prosecutrix had stated that her daughter had informed her father on phone that accused was committing bad act with her. It was further stated by her that her daughter did not tell her about the aggressive act of the accused. However, the same was disclosed by her to her husband. PW-3, Surjeet Singh, father of the prosecutrix had st