- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4-7-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 45/95, by which he acquitted the accused-respondent No. 1 Munsi of the charges for the offence under Ss. 366 and 376, I.P.C. and accused-respondent No. 2 Ibrahim of the charges of the offence under Ss. 120-B and 366, I.P.C.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :- On 2-6-1995 at about 7.00 p.m. P.W. 3 Mangu lodged a written report Ex. P/1 before P.W. 8 Rameshwarlal, S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali, Churu stating inter alia that his brother Idris had gone to Iraq and Sahanaj, P.W. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) aged about 17-18 years was his niece. It was further stated in the report that on 30-5-1995 at about 5.00 p.m., accused-respondent No. 1 Munsi, after enticing prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj, had taken her with him from Churu and kept with him for three days and since evening of 30-5-1995, search was being made about whereabout of the prosecutrix. It was further stated in the report that on 1-6-1995 in the noon, he along with Nawab, Daud, Asgar (P.W. 6) and Eliyas (P.W. 4), while searching prosecutrix from place to place, reached Athuni Rohi, where prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj was found in the hut in the field and at that time, accused-respondent No. 1 Munsi was also there. It was further stated in the report that when P.W. 3 Mangu reached there in the hut, prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj told him that accused-respondent No. 1 Munsi had kidnapped her by enticing her and by putting her under fear, he has committed rape with her 3-4 times and when she refused to do so, he threatened her to kill. Thereafter, prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj was brought in the Mohallah and meeting of the Panchayat was called and it was decided that report be lodged and thus, this report was lodged by P.W. 3 Mangu. On this report, regular FIR Ex. P/2 was chalked out and investigation was started. During investigation, the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj was got medically examined and her medical examination report is Ex. P/6. The accused-respondent No. 1 Munsi was arrested on 26-6-1995 through Ex. P/7. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused-respondents in the Court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 2-11-1995, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu framed charges for the offence under Ss. 366 and 376, I.P.C. against accused-respondent No. 1-Munsi and under Ss. 120-B and 366, I.P.C. against accused-respondent No. 2-Ibrahim. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondents under S. 313, Cr. P.C. were recorded. No evidence in defence was produced by the accused-respondents. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu through his judgment and order of acquittal dated 4-7-1996 acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges framed against them holding inter alia that it was a case of consent. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 4-7-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal.
(3.) In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj has specifically stated in her statement that the accused-respondent No. 1-Munsi has committed rape on her with or without her consent and the accused-respondent No. 2-Ibrahim supplied the food and, therefore, the case of the prosecution should be held to be proved and reliance should be placed on the statement of the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj. Hence, impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu be set aside. 3A. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that impugned order of acquittal is based on correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu acquitted both accused-respondents and thus, no interference is called for with the impugned order of acquittal in this appeal. ;