IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of compelling reasons to overturn such a decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, learned A.G.A. for the State/appellant and Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 to 4. We have perused the record and also the impugned judgment under challenge in this appeal.

2. The trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents for charge under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, vide judgment and order dated 08.04.2015 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/FTC, Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 233 of 2010 (State vs. Balwan Singh and others). This appeal under 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been preferred at the instance of the State as Government Appeal against the impugned judgment and order.

3. The brief facts of the case as appeared from FIR and other material on record are that the defacto complainant Munna Lal had given a written report on 22.04.2009 at Police Station concerned, on the basis of which Chick FIR (Ext. Ka-2) was drawn by Head Constable Sudhakar Singh on 22.4.2009 at 11:00 hours under Section 363 and 366 IPC at Police Station Rura, District Kanpur Dehat. The informant stated in his written report that on 07.04.2009 his minor daughter whose date of birth was 15.09.1993 had gone with her younger brother Rohit to the market to take medicines, at around 10:00 am accused Balwan Singh and Akhilesh who were coming by a tractor met them and got his daughter and son sit on the tractor. On some pretext they send his son Rohit to take guthka for them on way and when he returned back to the place where he was dropped by accused persons, he found neither the accused nor tractor nor his sister (victim), thus Rohit came back to home and narrated the incident to the informant. The informant embarked on search of his missing daughter, and in that sequence Akhilesh met him in the evening on the bank of a canal in Ballia and on making a pointed query he told that his brother Siya Ram and his brother-in-law (Bahnoi) who belonged to Panki took away his daughter from Madhauli by making her sit on a Marshal Jeep. The informant raised an apprehension in FIR, if his daughter be not recovered immediately she might be killed by the accused persons.

4. The police carried out investigation in the case and victim was recovered on 03.05.2009 by police. On secret information on 03.05.2009 at 17:15 hours she was recovered alongwith main accused Balwan Singh. Both the accused and victim were apprehended by police near staircase of over-bridge situated towards North of Railway Station Rura. The accused Balwan Singh was taken into custody by police and recovery cum arrest memo was prepared, which is placed on record as Ext. Ka-6. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the victim and other witnesses prepared site plan of place of occurrence, which is marked as Ext. Ka-7. In medico legal examination of victim which was carried out by C.M.O. District Women Hospital, Kanpur Dehat, no mark of injury was seen on private part, hymen was torn and healed, vagina admitted two fingers easily. Referred to Radiologist for Xray, for ossification test for age examination. In the opinion of lady doctor she was found to be used to sexual intercourse and no definite opinion about rape could be given. In age determination report Ext. Ka-5, her age was found to be more than 18 years, on the basis of her radiological examination. The Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against named accused persons Balwan Singh, Akhilesh, Siya Ram and Vimal Chandra Tiwari for committing and facilitating the offence of kidnapping and rape. The tractor in which the victim was allegedly kidnapped was taken into custody by police, which is marked as Ext. Ka-9.

5. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat committed the case for trial to the court of session, as offence was triable by court of session. Learned Additional Session Judge Court No. 3, Ramabai Nagar framed charge under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, against charges