The judgment emphasizes the principle of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence in appeals against acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

1. State has preferred this appeal against judgment of acquittal passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 2008, State vs. Meharban @ Sachin on 06.03.2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent Meharban @ Sachin for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Penal Code”, in brief).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the informant, who happens to be father of the victim (his name has been withheld in this judgment) produced a written First Information Report in the Jwalapur Police Station, Haridwar that his daughter, who was working in a private factory was enticed away under the threats by the respondent on 01.12.2007 and that she was found on 02.12.2007 in the state of unconsciousness near Jatwara Bridge. She informed that the respondent Sachin alias Meharban r/o Sultanpur Kunhari, PS Laksar, who was commuting the victim, as an auto-rickshaw driver committed rape upon her. On such report submitted on 02.12.2007 at 08:45 PM, case crime no. 545 of 2007, was registered for the aforesaid offences. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer examined the complainant, victim and other witnesses, got the victim and examined medically, got her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (herein after referred to as the “the Code”, for brevity). Upon completion, investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the respondent. The case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 286 of 2008 and was committed to the Court of Sessions.

3. The respondent took the plea of denial and pleaded his false implication by the Investigating agency.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. The victim (her name is withheld) was examined as PW2. PW1 is her father and informant of the case. PW3 Doctor Chandra Prabha is the Doctor, who examined the victim. PW4 is mother of the victim. PW5 Dr. R. K. Pandey is a Radiologist, examined to prove the Ossification test. PW6 Constable Bhagwati Prasad is the Constable in the office of Senior Superintendant of Police, Roshnabad, Haridwar. PW7 is the Head Constable Ajeet Singh and PW8 Mahendra Singh Chauhan is Sub Inspector, who investigated the case.

5. Learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar after taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecutrix and also medical evidence produced came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, taking into consideration specially the fact that the victim was travelling with the respondent for a long time and passed through a very crowded streets and also where the police constables were deputed, came to the conclusion that she was the consenting party. The learned Sessions Judge further found that there are no admissible documents produced in this case to establish the age of the victim. Hence, he held that the victim was not a minor at the time of occurrence. Therefore, the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent is not guilty of the offenses alleged against him.

6. In assailing the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge, Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General would submit that the learned Trial Judge committed error by not taking into consideration the fact that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, especially, the victim has supported the case of the prosecution. The age of the victim was about 16-17 years as per the report of the radiologist PW 5 Dr. R.K.Pandey. Therefore, the learned counsel for the State would submit that the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar has committed error on record requiring the interference of the Appellate Court.

7. It is borne out from the record that that the victim has supported the case of the prosecution. It is, however, taken into consideration by the learned Additional