SUDHA RANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the acquittal order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 18.03.2013 acquitting the accused Rupesh Kumar of the charge under Section 376 of the IPC.

(2.) The story as unfolded is that the prosecutrix was married to the accused on 11.02.2004. On 15.03.2007, they were granted a divorce by a decree of mutual consent. This is also an admitted fact. This document was signed by both the parties. The contention of the prosecutrix was that this document had been obtained by her husband by fraud. Further submission of the prosecutirx being that after the date of divorce, she was forced to live in her husband's house wherein he committed rape upon her against her wishes. It was on 28.06.2007 that she went to her parents' home she was in a position to inform her parents about this unfortunate incident. Charge-sheet was filed in the aforenoted terms.

(3.) The trial Court noting the evidence which had come on record which primarily was the statement of the prosecutrix (examined as PW-1) as also the deposition on oath of her brother (examined as PW-4) had held that this is not a case where the conviction of the accused can be ordered as the prosecution has faulted in proving its case to the hilt. The reasons drawn up by the Court for arriving at this conclusion read herein as under:-