The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to significant discrepancies in testimonies and lack of corroborating evidence, resulting in acquittal.

JUDGMENT

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

1. Appellants namely, Surajpal and Udai Pal are aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 249 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 2015, registered at Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly, whereby they have been convicted under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C., and sentenced to twenty years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376-D I.P.C. alongwith fine of Rs.25,000/- each; three years imprisonment under Section 506 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in the event of default, they have been ordered to undergo further imprisonment of three months, and fifteen days, respectively. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The subject F.I.R. was registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 9.6.2015 submitted by Dharmpal to Station House Officer Aonla, District Bareilly, who alleged that he is a resident of village Panvariya, Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly. On 8.6.2015 at around 5 p.m., his daughter was bringing fodder from the village, and on the way co- villagers namely, Surajpal s/o Dilsukh and Udai Pal s/o Kannhiya Lal being drunk had pulled his daughter with bad intentions in the fields of Rakesh. They both had forcibly torn the clothes of his daughter and raped her. When complainant’s daughter cried and attempted to get herself released, Surajpal gagged her mouth with a cloth and after raping her, they both left his daughter naked in the fields, and also threatened her, if, she would disclose it to anyone, the consequences would be adverse. His daughter wearing torn clothes reached home and narrated the incident to him. The complainant described the age of the victim as 14 years and requested for registering a case. Broadly, on these allegations, F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 217 of 2015 was registered against the accused persons for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. After registration of the F.I.R., the investigation in the case was conducted by Investigating Officer namely, Anoop Singh Rathi, Sub Inspector, who recorded the statements of complainant-Dharmpal, his wife-Jeera Devi, prosecutrix and Rakesh. During investigation, the victim’s medical report dated 11.6.2015 was collected and site plan was also prepared. The statements of other formal witnesses were also recorded and finally the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. thereby sending them to face prosecution for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376- D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Special Court and vide order dated 11.5.2016 the charges against the accused persons were framed for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellants-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial

5. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons had examined seven witnesses namely, Dharmpal (P.W.-1), Victim (P.W.-2), Jeera Devi-mother of victim (P.W.-3), Dr. Shilpi Kesarwani (P.W.-4), Constable Ranveer Singh (P.W.-5), Dr. S.S. Chauhan (P.W.-6) and Investigating Officer Anoop Singh Rathi (P.W.-7). Besides, the prosecution also adduced documentary evidence i.e. written complaint (Exb.Ka-1), statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exb.Ka-2), medical report (Exb.Ka-3), supplementary medical report (Exb.Ka-4), pathology