Presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in case of acquittal and the appellate court's reluctance to disturb the finding of acquittal without material illegality or perversity in the judgment

JUDGMENT :

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.

The applicant has filed the present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20.2.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide which accused/respondent No. 2-Vinod has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 120-B/376/494/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('Act' for short) in FIR No. 80 dated 24.2.2017, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faridabad.

2. As per the prosecution story, the above said FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant/prosecutrix stating therein that one Pankaj was running an office of Consultancy at Nehru Ground where she had gone for employment with her bio-data, in which her mobile number was mentioned. Said Pankaj called her for employment time and again and later on expressed his desire to marry her and on the pretext of marriage, he had committed rape upon the applicant and also prepared obscene video which was not in her knowledge. Later, respondent No. 2-Vinod, started following her on Facebook and Whatsapp and had asked her to meet him. On her refusal, respondent No. 2-Vinod started contacting her on Whatsapp and told her that he had the knowledge about her relationship with Pankaj and that he had purchased the obscene C.D. from Pankaj for a sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs, which was in his possession and also threatened her to spoil her reputation by uploading her video on the internet. Respondent No. 2-Vinod performed marriage with the applicant on 13.2.2017 in Arya Samaj Temple, New Delhi. However, at the time of marriage he had already been married and having children. Respondent No. 2 was harassing the applicant on telephone and he also told her family members that he had performed marriage with the applicant and wanted to take her back. On coming to know about the whole story, the parents of the applicant filed a complaint against respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered.

3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused-respondent No. 2.

4. Vide order dated 18.9.2017, charge was framed against the accused-respondent No. 2 under Sections 120-B/376/494/506 IPC and Section 3 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined as many as 10 witnesses.

6. Pw-1 Roshan Lal, Advocate, Tees Hazari Court, Delhi, Oath Commissioner deposed that declaration of marriage affidavit (Mark-A) of Vinod Kumar-respondent No. 2 and marriage affidavit of applicant (MarkB) had been attested by him.

7. Applicant-Prosecutrix stepped into the witness box as PW-3 and stated that on the pretext of marriage, Pankaj had committed rape upon her and prepared a C.D. Thereafter, after about three years, the applicant came in contact with Vinod Sharma-respondent No. 2, who was friend of Pankaj. She further deposed that at later stage, Vinod-respondent No. 2 had started threatening her to defame her. On 7.9.2016, Vinod called her telephonically behind Rose Garden, NIT, Faridabad and raped her in his car SX4 colour silver and also told her that he had purchased her obscene video from Pankaj for Rs. 10.00 lacs. Thereafter on 13.2.2017, Vinod solemnized marriage with her in Delhi and again committed rape upon her.

8. Similarly PW-4 Mahesh Parshad, father of the applicant, deposed that Vinod-respondent No. 2 had threatened him on mobile phone and addressed him by name of his caste and had also committed rape upon his daughter.

9. Along with other witnesses, the prosecution had also examined PW-10 Dr. Manish Dayal, who had medico legally examined Vinod Kumar Sharma after obtaining his consent, Ex. PW-10/A and during examination, Vinod Kumar was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. He proved the MLR as Ex. PW-10/B.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has argue