The importance of a reasonable assessment of evidence and the need for concrete details and consistency in the testimony of the prosecutrix to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, J. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.08.2015, passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2011, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted Ramlakhan, the accused, of offense under Section 376 IPC, the State has filed the present appeal.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 27.07.2010, the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) submitted a written report (Ext. Ka-1) before the SHO, Nehru Colony, Dehradun, wherein she claimed that her father, Vinod Chetri, had expired in 2005. After the death of her father, her mother, Smt. Meena Chetri, started running a General Store. Subsequently, she developed an illicit relationship with her tenant, Ramlakhan, who does a business of selling glass and mirrors. She further claimed that when she came to know about this illicit relationship between the two, she tried to reason out with her mother. However, her mother threatened her, and forced her to have physical relationship with Ramlakhan. Due to her sexual exploitation by Ramlakhan, she felt so ashamed that she could not speak about it to anyone. At the instance of her mother, she was repeatedly raped by Ramlakhan. Eventually, she gathered sufficient courage to talk about this incident to the leader of the Samajwadi Party, Smt. Hema Bohra (P.W. 3). With her support, the complainant claimed that she developed sufficient courage to report this case to the Police.

3. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, namely, FIR No. 112/2010 (Ext. Ka-9), was chalked out, and the investigation commenced.

4. During the course of the investigation, the accused, Ramlakhan, was arrested; he was put up for trial. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses, and submitted twelve documents. In turn, the defense examined one witness, and submitted seventy-four documents.

5. After going through the evidence produced by both the sides, by the judgment dated 26.08.2015, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal filed by the State.

6. Mr. Amit Bhatt, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-

Firstly, the star witness of this case is the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) herself. However, the learned Trial Court has ignored her testimony. Instead, the learned Trial Court has over-critically analyzed her testimony in order to find faults with her deposition. Therefore, in extremely perverse manner, it has concluded that the prosecutrix is unreliable and untrustworthy witness.

Secondly, the Medical Report (Ext. Ka-11) clearly indicates that the hymen of the prosecutrix was broken. This clearly is an indication that she has been subjected to sexual assault by the accused.

Thirdly, according to the prosecutrix (P.W.1), once the incident was revealed to Hema Bohra (P.W. 3), she had gone to the house of the prosecutrix and had called her mother, Smt. Meena Chetri, and the accused, Ramlakhan. Admittedly, Ramlakhan had written a Mafinama (an apologetic admission made in writing) (Ext. Ka-4). Therefore, the accused had admitted his guilt. Hence, the learned Trial Court was not justified in ignoring the Mafinama.

Fourthly, the testimonies of Ruchi Chetri (P.W. 2) and Hema Bohra (P.W. 3) have supported the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W. 1). In fact, Ruchi Chetri (P.W. 2) is the aunt of the prosecutrix, and Hema Bohra (P.W. 3) is an adopted aunt, who has been treated as a family member of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the learned Trial Court is not justified in ignoring their testimonies.

Lastly, both through the testimonies of the witnesses, and through the documentary evidence, the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused. But, notwithstanding the cogent and the convincing evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court has unnecessarily over-analyzed the evidence. Needlessly, the learned Trial Court has based its reasoning on tech