The State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment and order dated 03/10/1992 in Sessions Case No.162 of 1991. By the judgment and order impugned, the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur acquitted the respondent of the charges levelled against him for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per prosecution case, the incident occurred on 24/07/1991 between 13:30 and 14:00 hours at Naz, Tal.Dascroi, Dist: Ahmedabad, where the respondent lured and took away the prosecutrix from lawful custody of her mother. At that time prosecutrix was aged 10 years. The prosecutrix was lured for giving fish and then she was raped. FIR was lodged, investigation was started and chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Dholka, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Case No.162 of 1991 came to be registered.
2.1 Charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC at Exh.10 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. We find that upon the accused pleading not guilty to the charge, the trial Court proceeded with the trial and considering the evidence on record, recored his acquittal and hence this appeal.
4. We have heard learned APP, Mr.Dabhi for the appellant. He has taken us through the record and proceedings.
5. We find that the trial Court has not believed the evidence of prosecutrix considering the other peripheral circumstances, which make the occurrence of the incident in the alleged manner doubtful.
5.1 The prosecutrix is examined at Exh.18. In her deposition, she has primafacie indicated involvement of the accused, where she alleged that he lured her to leave the house, initially by persuasion and then by threat. She was taken to an area where number of Babul trees were head grown. She then states that her clothes were removed and he forcibly had intercourse with her by mounting over her. The prosecutrix has been subjected to crossexamine wherein she states that the place where the incident occurred was full of thorn and full of small stones with hard surface. The place of incident was wet because of the rains. She states that she tried to relieve herself from the assailant. She states that she was dragged by the assailant. The actual incident lasted for half an hour and thereafter she herself put on her clothes. Her Payjama and all other clothes were stained with blood. They stayed at the Police Station for half an hour. Then she admits that she had not stated in her statement before Police that the assailant had mounted over her and then had forcibly intercourse. She also admitted that she had not stated before Police that the assailant had intimidated her.
6. The mother of the prosecutrix – Madhuben is examined at Exh.15. She states that she had left for her labour work at about 8:00 a.m. Her husband had also left for his labour work at 8:00 a.m. At that time, Niru was at home and her son Pravin had already left for school. She states that after returning to home, she had inquired of her daughter as to where she had gone, in response to which, she stated that Ranchhod had lured her daughter to go to pond side and had lavished her. There are certain admissions made by her in her crossexamination.
7. Having examined the evidence on record, we find that the prosecutrix is not coming out with a truthful story. She has made improvement in her version regarding the main incident of rape itself. If her version has to be accepted, she would have suffered a large number of external injuries, as the incident had occurred on a place where surface was hard and there were lot of small stones and lot of thorn.
8. We may add here that when medically examined, the accused was found to be having no marks of any injury on his person. It goes to the root of the entire prosecution case and, therefore, the view that is taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be an impossible one or palpably erroneous. We do not deem it proper to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court, as we do not find any merits in the appeal. The appeal must fail and stands dismissed.
(A L DAVE, J.) sompura (A J DESAI, J.)