- (1.) In Sessions Case No. 244 of 1997, the respondentaccused faced trial for charges framed under Section 376/511 I.P.C, which ended in his acquittal. Aggrieved thereof, the State is in appeal filed under Section 378 (1) and (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) The prosecution case as narrated by the victim in her fardbeyan is that, on 12.06.1997 at about 4 p.m. when she was cutting firewood, the accused namely, Jai Kant Yadav took her to the nearby ditch and tried to commit rape upon her. When she raised alarm her husband and cousin came there and intervened. In the meantime, several villagers also assembled there and tried to apprehend the accused and in this process the accused fled away leaving his wristwatch and cycle at the place of occurrence. P.W. 1 namely, Rawan Rai, the husband of the victim and P.W. 2 namely, Sitabi Rai, cousin of the victim were examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses, however, on the point of attempt to commit rape, injuries on the accused as well as the victim and presence of villagers after the victim raised alarm, their evidences have been found inconsistence and contradictory. The trial Court found serious discrepancy in the manner of occurrence as described by the victim P.W.6 from her fardbeyan recorded by the police. At the place of occurrence no sign of violence was found. Neither the wristwatch nor the cycle, which were left by the accused and picked up by P.W.1 and P.W. 2, were produced in the Court. The seizure list witness namely, Jiyadhar RaiP.W. 9 stated in the Court that the police had taken his signature on the blank papers and P.W. 8 has denied signature on the seizure memo. The defence of the accused is that the witnesses assaulted him and snatched his wristwatch, cycle and cash and in this connection Jarmundi P. S. Case No. 67 of 1997 was lodged in which police has submitted chargesheet against those persons. In the present case, on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Jarmundi (Taljhari) P.S. Case No. 68 of 1997 was registered.
(3.) We have carefully reappreciated the entire evidence and find that the view taken by the trial Court does not suffer from any serious infirmity in law. The trial Court has properly appreciated the prosecution evidence. There is no compelling reason for taking a view different from the view taken by the trial Court, acquitting the sole accused from the charges framed against him.;