- (1.)APPELLANT State has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment dt. 18.8.1987, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, Camp at Rehli, in Sessions Trial No. 231/85, whereby the respondents/accused persons were acquitted of the charges under sections 376 and 305, of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC).
(2.)RESPONDENTS /accused persons Shanker, Karan and Param were tried on the charge under sections 376 and 305, IPC on the allegation of their having committed rape on prosecutrix Baby alias Triveni Bai, a girl aged about 15 years on 7.3.1985 and thereby abetting her to commit suicide, who committed suicide by setting herself on fire on 7.3.1985. The report about the incident was lodged by Ram Narayan, uncle of the prosecutrix, wherein only this much was mentioned that the prosecutrix had died of burn injuries, inside the house. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. The trial Court, on a close scruting of the evidence led by the prosecution for establishing the above charges against the accused persons, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed in proving its case against the accused persons and therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal was recorded.
In the First Information Report, lodged by (PW 1) Ram Narayan, neither the accused persons were named nor it was mentioned that (PW 6) Ram Gopal and (PW 7) Devi Prasad were eye witnesses of the incident. (PW 6) Ram Gopal was aged about 6 years, whereas (PW 7) Devi Prasad was 10 years of age, at the time of their examination, as witnesses in the Court. Both these so called eye witnesses, in their deposition in the Court have come out with an altogether different story than the one alleged by the prosecution, by saying that they had seen the accused persons torching Baby alias Trivani to fire. (PW 6) Ram Gopal and (PW 7) Devi Prasad were confronted with their case diary statements, wherein it was not mentioned that they had seen the accused persons torching Baby alias Triveni to fire. The trial Court, on account of these infirmities in the evidence of these two so called eye -witnesses, discarded their evidence. On a close scrutiny of the statements of these two eye witnesses, we do not find any ground to disagree with the finding, recorded by the trial Court, so far as the evidence of these two witnesses is concerned.

a. As regards the suicidal note (Ex. P -5) the trial Court has taken note of the fact that in the First Information Report it was not mentioned that any such note was found near the body of the deceased. The trial Court further found that the evidence on record falls short of establishing that the hand writing in this suicidal note was that of the deceased. That apart, the contents of the suicidal note (Ex. P -5) do not, in any manner, connect the accused persons either with the commission of the offence under section 376, IPC, nor one under section 305, IPC.

b. The mere presence of seminal stains and spermatozoa, on the slides and the underwears of the accused persons, even if accepted at its face value, is not by itself sufficient for connecting the three accused persons with the commission of the offences under sections 376 and 305, IPC. The prosecutrix was a married woman and the accused persons at the time of their arrest were aged 25 years, 24 years and 20 years respectively. As such the presence of seminal stains and spermatozoa on their underwears can be on account of various other reasons.

c. On the above re -appreciation of the evidence on record, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court, leading to the acquittal of the respondents/accused persons of the charges under sections 376 and 305, IPC, do not suffer from any such illegality or perversity which may warrant interference by this Court, in this appeal against acquittal. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondents/accused persons of the charges under sections 376 and 305, IPC is hereby affirmed.

d. The respondents/accused person's are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged
.