M.C. Sharma, J. - (1.) THE aforesaid revision petition and cr. appeal have been filed against the judgment dated 25.8.2009 passed by Special Judge, Women Atrocities and dowry Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 23/2008, whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 450, 376 IPC, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common order.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as under: "On 6.12.2007, complainant petitioner along -with her father and mother appeared at Police Station, Galta Gate and submitted a report regarding committing rape with her by accused respondent Constable Shiv Prasad i.e. co -employee of her father. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 359/2007 was registered at Police Station, Galta Gate, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 450 and 376 IPC. The investigation was started. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 450 and 376 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The court below committed the case to the Court of Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 450 and 376 IPC, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused person were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the judgment dated 25.8.2009 acquitting the accused respondent. Against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal dated 25.8.2009 passed by the court(s) below, the revision petition No. 82/2010 has been preferred by the complainant, whereas appeal No. 153/2014 has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan." Learned PP appearing for the State as also the counsel for the complainant -petitioner have contended that the trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and only exercised the jurisdiction with material irregularity. The judgment of the trial court is also contrary to the facts on record and suffers from patent illegality and based on misreading of evidence, apparent on the face of it. They have further contended that the trial court has not appreciated the fact arising from the statement of the prosecution witnesses. They have further contended that the trial court has seriously erred in not appreciating the fact that in his statements the accused respondent and SHO Suresh Mehrania wrongly stated that the accused respondent submitted a report at Police Station, Galta Gate regarding conflict between him and father of the complainant petitioner, but he has not mentioned any reasons for not registering the case on the basis of the report of the accused respondent and he has not submitted a complaint before the higher authorities. They have further contended that the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent on the basis of the defence witnesses and wrongly acquitted the accused respondent. They have further contended that although they submitted the judgment (s) before the court below, but the same have not been considered by the trial court. Mr. R.R. Baisla, learned PP has placed on the same judgment, which has been cited by the trial court. They have further contended that no witness has been declared hostile and all the witnesses are naming the name of the accused respondent and it is the full proof case against him, hence the accused respondent be sent to jail after setting aside the judgment of trial court acquitting the accused respondent.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned counsel for the accused respondent has contended that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence submitted by the prosecution and after due appreciation of the evidence, the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent. He has further contended that there was a dispute in between the father of the prosecutrix and the accused respondent regarding duty chart and they belong to the same place. He has further contended that there was a delay in lodging the fir. He has further contended that accused respondent has sustained 5 injuries and the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries of the accused respondent. He has drawn the attention of this Court on the relevant part of the judgment of the court below, which is reproduced as under: ;