- (1.) The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order dated 01.10.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC, Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2005 whereby the present respondent original accused no. 1 has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused is the father of complainant victim and after the death of the accused's wife, the accused used to frequently rape his daughter complainant victim. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 23.12.2004, when the complainant and her brothers and sisters after taking meal were sleeping, the accused awakened the complainant and asked her to accompany him in the shed. When the complainant refused, he forcibly took her to the shed and committed rape on her. However, on the next day when the complainant victim and her sisters went to their grandmother's house, the victim narrated the entire event to her grandmother. A complaint was therefore filed by complainant victim. Thereafter, necessary panchnama was prepared. Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions. 2.1 The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced 5 witnesses as oral evidence as well as 12 documentary evidence. At the end of the trial and after recording the further statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him vide impugned judgement and order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
(3.) Mr. Pujari, learned APP appearing for the appellantState has submitted that the trial court committed an error in releasing the respondent-accused. It was contended by Mr. Pujari that the judgement and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence.;