The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH MEHTA, J. 

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 28.02.1996, passed by the learned Special Judge cum Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) in Sessions Case No.146/92 (72/88), whereby the accused-appellants were convicted as under:-

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a written Report (Exhibit- P/8) dated 02.07.1987 in Police Station, Arnod, Pratapgarh alleging inter alia that his daughter, the prosecutrix, had left for her in-laws’ place in village Bhadwas Kala about 4 months ago and went missing. He further alleged that pursuant to efforts made at their end, they found the prosecutrix to be living in Dhakarkhedi, District Bhilawara with one Bheria Meena, to whom she was sold under the customary practice of ‘Nata Pratha’ by Bumba Pathan, Baras Khan, Jagdish, Sohan Lal, Cheeman Lala Balai and the wives of Ambalala and Jagdish.

3. The Police filed a charge-sheet against all the accused persons for the offences under Sections 366/120B, 376, 344/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). The competent court after committing the case, sent it to the trial court, which framed charges qua appellant No.1, under Sections 366 /120B, 376/109-344/120B of the IPC, while charges under Section 366 /120B, 376-344/120B of the IPC were framed against other appellants namely, Gautam, Jagdish @ Jagla and Gopal @Jabba.

4. The prosecution produced PW-1 – Dr. K.L. Porwal; PW-2 – Babulal; PW-3 – Kalu; PW-4 – Nanuram; PW-5 – Gopi; PW-6 – Bhola; PW-7 – Chhogalal; PW-8 – Mohan; PW-9 – Omprakash; PW-10 – Mst. K; PW-11 – Rajesh Kumar; PW-12 – Narendra Kumar; PW-13 – Vakhthram; PW-14 – Tej Singh; PW-15 – Bamba @ Alimkhan; PW-16 – Nanda; PW-17 – Laldas; PW-18 – Thavarchand Damor – the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh – Investigating Officer in the witness box, whose statements were recorded. The prosecution also exhibited certain documents (Exhibit P/1 to P/9) in order to prove the charges framed against the accused-appellant persons.

5. The accused persons did not produce any evidence in their defence. However, their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded, wherein they stated that they had been falsely implicated because of animosity.

6. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record had acquitted the appellant no.1 - Kesu Ram for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and other appellants-accused persons for the offence under Sections 344 /120B of the IPC. However, the appellant no.1 - Kesu Ram was convicted for the offence under Section 366 /120B of the IPC while other appellants namely, Jagdish @ Jagla @ Jagannath, Gopal @Jabba and Gautam were convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC apart from Section 366 /120B of the IPC.

7. Mr Praveen Vyas, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court has not scrutinized the prosecution evidence in light of the fact that the written report dated 02.07.1987 (Exhibit- P/8) based on which the FIR was registered on 04.07.1987 does not contain the allegation of rape being committed by the