The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering an appeal against a judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so.

ORDER :

CONCR No. 95/2016

1. Notice was issued to the respondent. The report of the Station House Officer, who was directed to effect the service, is that the respondent refused to accept the notice. Such refusal would amount to service. It is in these circumstances that we are taking up the consideration of the applications in the absence of the respondent.

2. The delay which is sought to be condoned is of 137 days. For the reasons stated in the application and upon hearing the counsel for the State, we allow the application for condonation of delay and accordingly condone the delay.

SLAA No. 103/2016

3. This is an application seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal. By virtue of the judgment dated 03.12.2015 rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur in file No. 10/Sessions, the appellant has been acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 376/458/511 RPC. The case emanated from FIR No. 64/2013 under the said offences, which was registered in Police Station, Ram Nagar, on 29.05.2013.

4. A written complaint was filed on 29.05.2013 in the Police Station, Ram Nagar, by the complainant/prosecutrix-Mst. Z (The name has been withheld to protect the identity of the prosecutrix). As per the contents it was alleged that in the previous night at about 12 midnight in Village Surni when the prosecutrix alongwith her children were sleeping in the room, the respondent having a criminal intention entered the room and took her outside into the field where he allegedly tore her clothes forcibly and after that he attempted to rape her. On her raising a hue and cry, witnesses rescued her. She also alleged that during the occurrence two of her gold rings had gone missing. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the investigation ensued and the Investigating Officer (PW-4 Nazir Ahmed) presented the challan against the accused in court. Charges were framed against the respondent, as pointed out above, under Section 458/376/511 RPC. Since he pleaded innocence, trial ensued. The prosecution examined only four witnesses Mst. Z (the Prosecutrix), PW-2 Vidya Devi (the Sister-in-law of the prosecutrix), PW-3 Faquir Chand (the husband of the prosecutrix) and PW-4 Nazir ahmed (the Investigating Officer).

5. Mst. Z proved the contents of the complaint exhibit P1-1. She stated that while she was with her children and was sleeping in her room at night, as it was summer time, the door of their room was open. The electric bulb was on in the room as the children do not sleep in darkness. She stated that the respondent entered her room at night and gagged her mouth and forcibly carried her outside. The respondent then took her to the field and tore her clothes and thereafter tried to rape her. She stated that she started crying and thereafter went to the court alongwith her husband to file an application. Subsequently, she went to the Police Station. The police came to the spot and seized her clothes and recorded her statement. In cross-examination she stated that the house of Mulkh Raj is behind her house and that the house of the respondent and her uncle are adjacent to her house. Her elder son Roshan who was 18 years of age, lived in the house of some officer, but on the day of the occurrence her other son Ravi aged 15 years and daughter Arti aged 10/11 years were sleeping with her. In the adjacent room her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were sleeping. She stated that when the accused gagged her mouth, she had tried to resist on the bed itself, but could not succeed. The accused then dragged her to the field from the room. She also stated that before that she had a scuffle with the respondent for about 5 to 7 minutes, but her children, mother-in-law and sister-in-law did not know about the occurrence because her mother-in-law remained ill and her sister-in-law was taking medicines and becomes unconscious after taking such medicines. She also alleged that she sustained scratches on both her legs. Even upon her raising hue and