In an appeal against acquittal, the prosecution carries the heavy burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Without independent corroborative evidence, proof of essential ingredients like age and inducement, and testimony that inspires absolute judicial confidence, an acquittal must be upheld to maintain the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

[1.0] This appeal is directed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for short) against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.03.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Sessions Case No.59/1997, whereby, the learned Sessions Court acquitted the respondent – accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 392, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

[2.0] The following noteworthy facts emerges from the record of the appeal:

[2.1] The prosecution case in brief is that the complaint is produced at Exh.23 wherein it is stated that on 26.10.1996, while victim was sleeping at her home, at that time the accused persons entered in her residential home and accused No.1 evicted her stating that she had sold goat and where she has kept the money i.e. Rs.3600/- towards the same. The victim replied that it was kept in box and accused No.1 opened the box and pocketed the said money. Thereafter, accused have gagged the victim and thereafter abducted her. Initially, it had been told by accused No.1 to the victim that they are going to village Chharada and then they went to Vadodara and then to Savli and after three days, they went to relative of accused No.1 and there they stayed. At that time, accused No.1 has taken the ornaments from the victim and though she demanded back, accused No.1 did not return the same. Then they stayed at village Savli and at Savli, accuse No.1 had committed rape on the victim for two to three times against the will and wish of the victim. In this regard, the complaint came to be filed for the offence under Sections 392, 363, 366, 376, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC.

[2.2] Therefore, on 21.11.1996, the FIR being I-CR No.235/1996 came to be registered against the respondents – accused and at the end of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the trial Court. Since it was a sessions triable offence, the case was committed to Sessions Court and ultimately trial was initiated and charge came to be framed on 07.02.1998 for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 392 and 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

[2.3] At the trial, in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined several witnesses and also relied upon the documentary evidences, which are as under:

LIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES

LIST OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES

[2.4] After recording the evidence, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC came to be recorded wherein the accused pleaded not guilty.

[2.5] Upon hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Trial Court acquitted present respondents – accused from the charges for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376, 392 and 506(2) read with Section 114 vide impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.03.1999 in Sessions case No.59/1997, as mentioned above.

[3.0] Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

[4.0] Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt has submitted that the learned Trial Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence though there was ample evidence on