- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the State on I.A. No. 4568 of 2014 filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein prayer has been made to condone the delay of 250 days in filing this acquittal appeal. Having satisfied with the grounds taken, delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5035 of 2014 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 3993 of 2014: This interlocutory application has been filed under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant leave. Leave to appeal is granted. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3993 of 2014 stands disposed of. Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) Case. No. 18 of 2014. Heard learned counsel for the State on the merit of the case.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th August, 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge -I, Sahibganj in Sessions Trial Case No. 284 of 2012, whereby respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been convicted on the charge -levelled under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. According to the case of the prosecutrix, P.W. 1 Janji Murmu that while she was passing through the road Mirzachowki at 7.30 p.m. on 9.9.2012 and came near crusher Mill of Raja Ram Sah, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 caught hold her and then they, one by one, committed rape upon her. Upon such accusation, Borio (M) P.S. Case No. 234 of 2012 was registered under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code against the above accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted, upon which, cognizance of the offence was taken against the respondents. When the case was committed to the court of sessions, the respondents were put on trial, during which, prosecution examined eight witnesses, out of them. P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix, Janji Murmu, whereas P.W. 2 happens to be a sister of P.W. 1 and P.W. 7 is the husband of P.W. 2. The Prosecutrix P.W. 1 in her examination -in -chief has testified in the same manner as she has made statement in her fard beyan. According to P.W. 2, she came to know about the occurrence from P.W. 1. She did note about the sign of rape also. According to P.W. 7, when he came to the place of occurrence, he found the prosecutrix in bad condition and then he derived the knowledge of the occurrence from P.W. 1 but the testimony of all the witnesses were disbelieved by the court as it was placed on record that the prosecutrix had enmity with accused persons -respondents. It has been brought on record that wife of Pradeep Mandal, D.W. 1 -Sangita Devi, had earlier lodged a case against the prosecutrix in which she has been convicted. That case had been lodged on the allegation that in spite of money being taken to transfer the land, the land was being not transferred by the prosecutrix, and that, one of the witnesses has even stated that she was threatening the accused person to pay money, otherwise they would be implicated in the case.
(3.) TAKING into account all these facts, the trial court did hold that testimonies of none of the witnesses even the prosecutrix is not worth reliable. Furthermore, the trial court did record that version of the prosecutrix does not get corroboration from the medical evidence, as the doctor, who did examine the prosecutrix, neither did find any injury on the person of the prosecutrix nor did find any sign of rape. Accordingly, we find that the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused -respondents.;