(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
1. The appeal arises out of judgment and order rendered by Sessions Court, Vadodara on 01.05.1993 in Criminal Appeal No.1083 of 1993. The respondent was acquitted of charges punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (11)(7) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence, this appeal.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that the respondent kidnapped minor Hasumati, daughter of first informant - Sendhabhai Shivabhai Makwana, between 10 to 10-30 am on 10.03.1992 and thereafter, committed rape on her.
3. The prosecution examined the first informant, the prosecutrix, the doctor and other witnesses.
3.1 In her deposition, the prosecutrix stated that she was forcibly kidnapped in auto-rickshaw by the accused. She was made to move place to place with him and during that period, the respondent has forcibly established physical relationship with her. Because, the girl was minor (less than 16 years according to prosecution case), offence of rape was constituted so also the kidnapping.
4. However, the trial Court found that the version, that is emerging from evidence of the prosecutrix regarding kidnapping and rape, is not emerging from her statement before the police and what is stated by her in the police statement is not stated by her in her deposition.
5. The version of the prosecutrix about kidnapping is sought to be submitted by prosecution by examining brother of the prosecutrix viz., Rohit at Exh.16. In cross-examination, he admits that he did not lodge any complaint or FIR or did not inform anyone about the incident for six to seven days. His father - first informant is police employee.
6. Thus, version given by Rohit, Exh.16, suffers from the defect of an unnatural conduct of not informing anyone about the incident for number of days.
7. In our opinion, the trial Court was justified in not accepting the prosecution case and evidence. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by trial Court and confirm the acquittal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
Dave, J.] Sd/-
Desai, J.] #MH Dave Top