(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI) 1 State of Gujarat by way of the present appeal has challenged the judgment and order dated 23.2.1993 passed in Sessions Case No.17 of 1991 by Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, acquitting the respondent from the charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2 The prosecution case in brief was that one Dariyaben Raysingbhai, aged about 35 years, lodged a complaint with Police Inspector, Panigate Police State, Vadodara and alleged that the respondent - accused is a Doctor, to whom she visited for check up at his clinic on 23.3.1991 at about 10.30 hours since she was suffering from fever, where the Doctor committed rape on her under the guise of examining her. This complaint was lodged on 25.3.1991 by said Dariyaben. The Police Officer after investigation, submitted a charge sheet in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Vadodara, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Court, Vadodara. The accused denied the charges which were framed at Exhibit-4 and, therefore, the trial proceeded.
3 The prosecution examined 8 witnesses including Doctor, who had examined the prosecutrix as well as the accused person. The learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi submitted that the Trial Court has erred in not accepting the deposition of the prosecutrix on the ground that, looking to her conduct, her versions is not believable. It is an admitted position that, as per deposition of the prosecutrix- PW-2 Dariyaben, Exhibit-17, the said incident took place on 23.3.1991 whereas the complaint was lodged on 25.3.1991 i.e. after two days of the incident. It is revealed from the deposition of the complainant that she did not inform about the incident to her husband immediately since some guests were there in her house. She did not inform her husband on the next day also as they had gone to visit Mahisagar river and she informed her husband only on the next day at night. The complaint - Exhibit-18 reveals that after the said incident, the accused gave her medicines for her illness. It was also revealed from the complaint that she did not shout at the time of incident and did not inform anybody after coming out of the clinic. She has further stated in her complaint that her husband advised her that, she being a scheduled caste person, if, she files a complaint with the police, she would get Rs. 10,000/- from the government 4 We have carefully gone through the deposition of the prosecutrix, which inspires no confidence. In our view, the conduct of the prosecutrix is not believable as she did not inform her husband for two days about the serious incident which took place in broad day light in a clinic of a Doctor. It is proved in the deposition of the Investigating Officer that she had lodged the complaint as per the advice of her husband, so that she can get Rs. 10,000/- from the government.
5 Now considering the deposition of Dr. Pankaj H. Baral, PW-2, Exhibit-15, no injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrix.
6 The way in which the prosecutrix tried to describe the incident of rape, it is difficult to accept that she did not at all resist and permitted the accused to commit the rape. Further,the prosecutrix has not led any evidence to establish that the respondent-accused also committed the offence under Sections 3 and 7 of the Atrocities Act.
7 Looking to the time and place of incident and overall conduct of the prosecutrix, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent-accused from the charges levelled against him. We are in agreement with the reasonings given by the Trial Court and confirm the acquittal of the respondent. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
(A.L.
DAVE, J.) (A.J.
DESAI, J.) pnnair Top