An appellate court must not reverse a trial court's judgment of acquittal unless it is demonstrably perverse, based on a misreading of evidence, or if the view taken by the trial court is not a legally plausible one.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ

CAV Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey, J

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 11.7.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara in ST No.23/2016 acquitting the respondent No.1/accused of the charges under Sections 452 and 376/34 of IPC.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.8.2012 at 12 noon the prosecutrix lodged a report against respondent No.1/accused and co-accused Meenaram, who are her brothers-in-law (Devar), that last night at 1 am both the accused persons unauthorizedly entered her house and committed rape upon her turn by turn. When she tried to raise alarm, they threatened her of life and also hit on her head with a liquor bottle. Based on this report, offence u/s 376(2) (D), 506 Part-II, 323 and 450 of IPC was registered against them. During investigation, medical examination of the prosecutrix was done, spot map was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. However, for want of sufficient evidence the police filed a closure report on 22.5.2013. Thereafter, the prosecutrix filed a complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja and after recording statements of the prosecutrix and the witnesses u/s 200 and 202 of CrPC, complaint case under Sections 376(2) and 452 of IPC was registered against the accused persons and summons were issued to them. After appearance of the accused and committal proceedings, the matter was received for trial by learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara.

03. During the course of trial co-accused Meenaram died. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 452 and 376/34 of IPC against the respondent No.1/accused which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 06 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication due to property dispute. In his defence, he examined two witnesses.

04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent No.1/accused of all the charges by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.

05. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. He submitted that learned trial Court was not justified in holding that the wounds suffered by the complainant were result of a motor accident and not that of a rape incident. It has erred by not considering the medical examination report of the prosecutrix which goes to show that the injuries suffered by the prosecutrix were result of her rape and subsequent hitting of bottle on her head as stated by her in her deposition. Learned trial Court did not consider the contents of the spot map wherein at para 1 it describes the spot where the accused at the time of rape hit the prosecutrix with bottle and the pieces of broken bottle and bangles were visible. PW-5 clearly stated that the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix and she was carrying with her blood stained saree and there were stitches on her forehead. In cross-examination she stated that the prosecutrix told her that her life was in danger. However, this evidence has not been properly appreciated by learned trial court. Merely on the basis of certain irrelevant contradictions and omissions learned trial Court recorded an erroneous finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. The prosecutrix/complainant has categorically state