The applicant has by way of this Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenged the order dated 28.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Deesa below Ex.35 Application in Sessions Case No.178 of 2001 whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent Nos.2 to 5 - original accused from the charges under Sections 363, 366 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
The brief facts leading to the case of the applicant are that on 19.4.2001 at about 7:00 p.m. While the applicant's daughter Jyotsnaben was going towards the field of her father and was about to reach the filed the respondent Nos.2 to 5 came there in Jeep bearing Registration No.GJ-6-L-5157 and forcibly took the applicant's daughter Jyotsnaben. Thereafter, having failed to trace out Jyotsnaben the applicant filed FIR being C.R.No.I-45 of 2001 with Tharad Police Station against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 114 of the IPC on 21.4.2001.
Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against them in the Court of learned Judge.
Thereafter, charge at Exhibit-5 came to be framed and explained to the accused person, to which the accused person not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them.
After hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Deesa, by his judgment and order dated 28.3.2005 passed in Sessions Case No.178 of 2001 acquitted the accused persons as stated above.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Deesa, the applicant has preferred the present Revision Application before this Hon'ble Court.
Heard Mr.H.K.Patel, learned advocate appearing for applicant and Mr.H.L.Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State.
The judgment and order of acquittal is challenged on various grounds as mentioned in the memo of Revision. Mr.Patel has read oral evidence of the prosecutrix Ex.19 and contended that as per oral version of the prosecutrix - Jyotsnaben it is corroborated with the evidence of the complainant - Sonaji Ganeshji Ex.16 and mother of the prosecutrix Maniben Ex.18. It is contended that from Medical Certificates Ex.13 and 14 sexual relation is proved beyond reasonable doubt. As per Ex.22 age of the prosecutrix is proved. He has further contended that so far as ingridients of provisions of Section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code are concerned, kidnapping as well as rap is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has lastly contended that the learned Judge has not considered case of the prosecution and wrongly acquitted the accused.
Heard Mr.H.L.Jani, learned APP for the respondent - State. He has read judgment and order passed by the learned Judge. He has vehemently argued that root of the prosecution case is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Mr.Jani, therefore, contended that the judgment and order of the learned Judge does not require any interference.
The prosecutrix-
Jyotsnaben star witness of this case is examined at Ex.19. In oral version she was declared hostile before the learned Judge. No corroborative piece of evidence is produced in this case. I have also perused case history given to the Medical Expert by the prosecutrix. In that case prosecutrix has admitted the fact that she was never kidnapped. She has admitted that, due to the reason that she was engaged with one Dayaji Bhimaji, who was around 35 years old and she disliked him therefore she run away with the accused - Kanti. There was consent of the prosecutrix and even minor age of the prosecutrix is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I have gone through papers produced before me and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned counsel.
In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Deesa was completely justified in acquitting the respondent Nos.2 - to 5 original accused of the charges levelled against them.
I find that the findings recorded by the learned Judge are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
Hence, in view of the foregoing reasons, present Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Deesa below Ex.35 Application in Sessions Case No.178 of 2001 is hereby confirmed.
Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.
K. SAIYED, J) kks Top