O R D E R

2. By way of instant petition, the appellant has sought leave of this Court under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated

14.01.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 03/07 of 2018 under Sections

376 (2) (f) (j) (n), 506 and 342 of IPC.

3. Respondent was charged and tried for commission of offence under Sections 376 (2) (f) (j) (n), 506 and 342 of IPC. The prosecution examined total 23 witnesses. Respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of trial, learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent of all the charges, as noticed above.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that the respondent had committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix during the intervening night of 01.01.2017 and 02.01.2017 without her consent and against her wish by intoxicating her with some tablet. The prosecutrix was wrongfully confined in her house by the respondent w.e.f. 02.01.2017 to 04.01.2017 and further she was criminally intimidated with threat of life. It was alleged that the prosecutrix, who was sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of respondent was alone in her house on 01.01.2017. Respondent visited her and stayed in her house. The prosecutrix was having headache and the respondent administered her a tablet of medicine pretending such tablet to be a pain reliever, but prosecutrix was intoxicated and thereafter respondent committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and wish as she had been rendered incapable of giving consent on account of intoxication. It was further alleged that the respondent threatened the prosecutrix with dire consequences in case she disclosed the conduct of respondent to anyone and the prosecutrix was not allowed to leave her house till 04.01.2017 by the respondent. On 05.01.2017, at about 6.30 P.M. the prosecutrix submitted a written complaint at Police Station, Bharari, District Bilaspur on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-14/A was registered. After investigation, the challan was presented. The respondent was tried and finally acquitted, as noticed above.

5. Learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur has acquitted the respondent. The perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the entire evidence and all material aspects of the matter. We have found that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent.

6. In order to convict a person, the offence charged against him is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The prosecutrix appeared as PW-2 before the learned Sessions Judge.

The perusal of deposition made by this witness does not inspire confidence. The prosecutrix was a married woman aged about 45 years. She has two grown up sons both of whom were working. The husband of the prosecutrix was working at Ludhiana in the State of Punjab. The allegation of prosecutrix that she was not in a position to resist the act of respondent on account of intoxication is shrouded with suspicion. PW-11 LC Deepika is one of the witnesses in whose presence the prosecutrix had handed over to the police one scarf (dupatta) Ext. PY-2 and a lower Ext. PY-1 on 05.01.2017. As per this witness the prosecutrix had disclosed that the respondent had used her dupatta for cleaning himself after the sexual intercourse. In case the prosecutrix was in a position to perceive the happenings like her dupatta being used by the respondent for cleaning himself after sexual intercourse, it is hard to believe that the prosecutrix was not in a position to resist the alleged act of sexual intercourse or such act was being done without her consent.

7. PW-3 Pardeep Kumar in his cross-examination admitted that there was a pump house at a distance of 15-20 meters from the house of prosecutrix and one person remained on duty at the pump house throughout the day. As per the version of prosecutrix, she had r