IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and lack of reliable evidence, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

(Per : Shri Alok Kumar Verma, J.) These two Appeals have been filed assailing the judgment dated 21.08.2014, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.55 of 2014, by which the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charge of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”), and Section 506 IPC.

2. The victim (PW1), aged about 24 years, lodged a First Information Report (Ext. Ka.4) through her written information (Ext. Ka.1) that the accused, aged about 62 years, works in exorcism and giving amulets. She had a headache about twelve days ago. She went to the accused for treatment. He took her to a room and committed rape on her. He had threatened to kill her. Due to fear, she told her father and brother about the incident after several days.

3. The First Information Report (Ext. Ka.4) was registered on 30.11.2013 by Head Constable Bala Ram Joshi (PW5). Sub-Inspector Kulwant Singh (PW7) had sent the victim to the hospital for her medical examination. Medical Examination of the victim was conducted by Dr. Deepa (PW4) on 01.12.2013. The victim’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 03.12.2013. Accused was arrested on 13.12.2013. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer Sohan Lal Nautiyal (PW6) filed a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.8) against the accused under Section 376 IPC and Section 506 IPC.

4. Charges were framed against the accused under Section 376 IPC and Section 506 IPC. As the accused pleaded innocence, the trial was held.

5. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses.

6. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded.

7. The respondent-accused has examined five witnesses in his defence evidence.

8. The Criminal Appeal No.392 of 2014, filed by the victim, will be treated as a leading case.

9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.

10. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State and Mr. Shubham Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the victim, have contended that the prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of the victim (PW1), who is a mentally challenged woman. Her testimony cannot be discarded at any manner. The Gram Pradhan (PW2), who is an independent witness, has also supported the prosecution case. The trial court has failed to consider the fact that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

11. Mr. Devendra Singh Negi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court. He has submitted that the prosecution has not filed any medical report to show that the victim is a mentally challenged woman, while the Gram Pradhan (PW2) has stated in her cross-examination that she does not know that the victim is a mentally challenged woman. The son of the accused had contested against the Gram Pradhan (PW2) in the election, which the Gram Pradhan (PW2) has accepted in her cross-examination, hence she has been produced as a witness against the accused.

12. The law is well settled that the order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of the innocence of the accused. Equally, it is the duty of the Court to see that the guilty person does not escape from the punishment. Therefore, we have carefully assessed the evidence, available on the record.

13. As per the FIR, victim herself had gone to the accused for her treatment but she has stated in her cross-examination that on the day of the incident, she had gone to the accused when the accused had sent his grand-daughter to call her. She has stated in her cross-examination that she (grand-daughter) had come to call her at 10 in the morning. She had gone with her whereas she has stated in her examination-in-chief that she had gone to the accused at around 2 o’clock in the afternoon.

14. The victim has stated in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Pr