Raju Diwalu Uketone vs This Revision Application Is ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 8 Bom

                                            1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR




                                                                                    
            Criminal Revision Application No. 40/2009




                                                            
             Raju Diwalu Uketone, aged 28 years,
             Occ. Labourer, r/o Chicholi, Tah. Mouda,
             Dist. Nagpur (In Jail)             .. APPLICANT




                                                           
                             .. Versus ..

             State of Maharashtra, thr. PSO
             Police Station, Mouda, Dist. Nagpur.




                                               
                                             .. NON APPLICANT
                           
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Mr. R. M. Patwardhan, Advocate for applicant.
     Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for non applicant.
                          
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CORAM:- S. S. SHINDE, J.
     Date of Reserving the Judgment:-   12.11.2009
     Date of Pronouncing the Judgment:- 07.12.2009
      


     JUDGMENT

1. This revision application is filed challenging

judgment and order dated 18.01.2007 passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.

6/2005, confirming the judgment and order passed by

16th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions

Trial No. 206/2002, dated 31.01.2005. Facts of the case

are as under.

2. Prosecution case is that the prosecutrix PW3

aged about 17 years had gone to the field of Panjabrao for

doing labour work on wages. The prosecutrix at lunch

time went to nearby Well to fetch water for drinking. At

that time, accused caught hold of her, took her forcibly

below a Neem tree, fell her down and after removing her

clothes had sexual intercourse with her. She, therefore,

lodged report Exh.-10 with Police. Crime was registered

at Police Station, Mouda. During investigation, accused

was arrested. The accused as well as prosecutrix were

medically examined. Spot Panchanama was prepared.

The statement of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter,

the seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. On

completion of necessary investigation, charge sheet came

to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Ramtek against the applicant for the aforesaid

offence. The case was then committed to the Court of

Sessions. Charge Exh.-4 came to be framed against the

accused i.e. applicant herein by learned 16th Ad hoc

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur for an offence

punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses in support

of its case before the 16th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions

Judge, Nagpur. After appreciation of the evidence on

record and after appreciating the arguments, evidence on

behalf of the applicant as well as prosecution, the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur convicted the applicant

and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for

seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

3. The applicant herein filed Criminal Appeal

No. 6/2005 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur by,

judgment and order dated 18.01.2007 dismissed the

appeal by confirming the judgment and sentence passed

in Sessions Trial No. 206/2002. Hence, this revision is

filed by the applicant/accused.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted

that the prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses out

of which three witnesses namely PW3-prosecutrix, PW6-

Jaibai and PW7-Murlidhar, who are mother and father of

the prosecutrix. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge,

after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the

applicant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of

the Indian Penal Code. According to learned counsel,

there are other witnesses examined by the prosecution

who could not through any light on the story of

prosecution so as to corroborate the same. The medical

evidence in respect of injuries and fact of rape being

negative helps the applicant. Further, Chemical Analyser's

report is also of no help to the prosecution as the results

are negative. Therefore, the prosecution story is only

based on evidence of three witnesses.

5. According to the learned counsel, the

prosecutrix claimed that the incident occurred at 2.00

p.m. but the fact that she immediately had come in

contact with two labourers namely Sunanda Uikey and

Rekha Thakare, but had not disclosed anything regarding

the occurrence to them. Even if the incident had occurred

and the prosecutrix was frightened, the same thing ought

to have been noticed by the said ladies and their

evidence would have brought credence to the story of the

prosecution. However, both of the said ladies are not

examined. Further, the prosecutrix had continued to work

in the field till evening and thereafter went back and

informed her mother regarding the occurrence. This

conduct of the prosecutrix belies the story of prosecution.

6.

The evidence of PW6 and PW7 is on the point

that the applicant confessed his guilt on the next day

morning and offered to marry with the prosecutrix and as

the father of the applicant refused the proposal, the

complaint has been lodged. However, the said claim is

found to be missing in the statements of the police and as

such the omissions are improvement made in the story by

these witnesses. Further, if on the next day of occurrence,

i.e. on 28.02.2002, the proposal was turned down by the

father of the applicant, no explanation is given by the

prosecution as to why the First Information Report was not

lodged till 02.03.2002. In such circumstances, the said

evidence deserves to be rejected. It is further submitted

that the appellate Court has not independently scrutinized

the evidence in appeal and merely confirmed the

judgment and order passed by Assistant Sessions Judge

and in view of judgment in Nandlal Dattusing Pardeshi

& Ors...vs..State of Maharashtra; 2001 ALL MR (Cri)

840 in revision application, evidence can be appreciated

and, therefore, the learned counsel would submit that this

Court can look into the evidence to decide whether

evidence inspiring confidence or not.

7. It is further submitted that it is the settled

position of law that when two views are possible from the

evidence and material on record, the view favourable to

the accused needs to be accepted. The circumstances of

the present case clearly demonstrate the case is in favour

of the applicant/accused, therefore, the evidence of the

prosecution deserves to be rejected and the applicant is

entitled to acquittal. It is further submitted that since

18.01.2007, the applicant is in jail custody and prior to

the said judgment of lower appellate Court, the applicant

was in Magisterial Custody Remand during the course of

trial till he was released on bail. In such circumstances,

the applicant is in jail for more than three years. Section

402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives powers of

appellate Courts and under Section 386 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure to the revisional Courts. Therefore, it

is submitted that in that view of the matter, by virtue of

Section 386 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this

Court is competent to alter the sentence than the

sentence awarded by the Courts below in case this Court

is not convinced for granting benefit of doubt for

acquitting the applicant of the charges under Section 376

of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant, in support

of his contention, placed reliance on reported judgment of

the Supreme Court in the cased of Jagannivasan ..vs..

State of Kerala; 1995 CRI.L. J. 3239. The learned

counsel invited my attention to para 5 of the said

judgment and submitted that the prosecutrix even after

alleged incident taken place did not inform the incident

either to the two ladies who were present in the entire

field and also till evening to her mother. Therefore, the

learned counsel submitted that this clearly creates doubt

in mind about the prosecution story and genuineness of

the complaint filed by the prosecutrix. Learned counsel

further invited my attention to the reported judgment of

this Court in Nandlal Dattusing Pardeshi & Ors. supra

to contend that in the revision also Court can appreciate

and look into the evidence. The learned counsel further

invited my attention to the reported judgment of this

Court in the case of Ashok Mahadeo Mahajan ..vs..

State of Maharashtra; 1981 Bom. C. R. 7 and

submitted that it is possible in the revisional jurisdiction

to look into the circumstantial evidence and the Court can

appreciate the evidence brought on record. It is further

submitted that under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the prosecution is entitled to read the contents

of Panchanama as evidence still as relevant contents are

capable of two constructions the one in favour of the

petitioner will have to be accepted. It is further submitted

that since the proposal of the marriage was turned down,

false case of rape is filed against the applicant. Learned

counsel, at the cost of repetition, again submitted that the

prosecution case is not supported by medical evidence or

Chemical Analyser's report. Therefore, the learned

counsel submitted that the applicant deserves to be

acquitted of all the charges by setting aside the impugned

judgment and order passed by the Courts below.

9. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, on

the other hand, submitted that the prosecutrix, in her

examination-in-chief and in the complaint has

categorically stated about the incident. The learned A.P.P.

invited my attention to the contents of examination-in-

chief of the prosecutrix and, therefore, submitted that if

the evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence, that itself

is sufficient to convict the accused under Section 376 of

the Indian Penal Code. Learned A.P.P. further submitted

that if the complaint and evidence of the prosecutrix is

trustworthy the said evidence alone is sufficient to sustain

conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned A.P.P. further submitted that there was no

intentional delay in lodging the First Information Report.

It is stated in the First Information Report itself that the

applicant/accused came to the house of the prosecutrix

on the next day and proposal for marriage was given by

the applicant. The learned A.P.P. invited my attention to

the statement of PW6-Jaibai and PW7-Murlidhar under

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which

mentions that the accused came to the house of

prosecutrix on the next day morning asking them to

accept the proposal of marriage between the applicant

and the prosecutrix. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that

the delay in filing First Information Report has been

explained by the prosecution. Both the courts have

accepted the explanation offered by the prosecution.

Learned counsel further submitted that father of the

accused asked the parents of complainant to wait for

three days to communicate his decision about marriage of

the complainant and accused. Learned counsel further

invited my attention to the spot panchanama and

submitted that place of incidence was underneath Neem

tree. The Chilly crop, which was standing at the place of

incidence, suffered damage during the said incident and

the same can be gathered from the Panchanama carried

out about the place of incident. Learned A.P.P,. in reply to

the contention of counsel appearing for the applicant

about delay in filing the complaint, invited my attention to

the reported judgment in Karnel Singh ..vs.. State of

M.P.; AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2472 and more

particularly para 7 of the said judgment. Learned A.P.P.

further invited my attention to the reported judgment of

the Apex Court to contend that if evidence of prosecutrix

inspires confidence then in case of rape no further

corroboration is necessary. In support of his contention,

learned counsel placed reliance on Rafiq ..vs.. State of

Uttar Pradesh; AIR 1981 Supreme Court 96.

Therefore, the sum and substance of the

arguments advanced by learned A.P.P. is that evidence of

the prosecutrix, inspires confidence and therefore no

further corroboration is necessary. The learned A.P.P.

further submitted that PW6 Jaibai and PW7 Murlidhar

corroborated that evidence of prosecutrix on material

particulars. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that the delay

has been properly explained by the prosecution and in

case the delay if any, it is not fatal for the case of the

prosecution. Both the courts have, after appreciating the

evidence on record, recorded concurrent findings and no

case is made out to upset the concurrent findings by

exercising revisional jurisdiction. Learned A.P.P. further

submitted that there is nothing brought on record by

accused so as to disbelieve the prosecution story merely

because there are few omissions and contradictions in the

statements of prosecution witnesses. The fact remains

that statement/evidence of the prosecutrix has remained

unshaken. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. submitted that

the revision is devoid of merits and the same deserves to

be dismissed.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant

at great length and also to the learned A.P.P. for the State.

At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to some of

the judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme

Court on the point of scope of revision. This Court, in the

case of Balkrishna Pandurang Moghe..vs..State of

Maharashtra and anr; 1998 (3) Mh. L. J. 331, in para

31 of the judgment, has observed as under:-

"31. As indicated earlier, at the behest of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have

gone through the evidence and we find no illegality or perversity in the approach or findings of the two Courts below. We may

only refer to few decisions on the limitations of the powers of this Court in a Criminal revision. In Duli Chand vs. Delhi

Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960, The Apex Court held in para 4 that the jurisdiction of the

High Court in Criminal Revision Application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon

a reappreciation of the evidence. Similarly in Pathumma and anr vs. Muhammad, AIR 1986 SC 1436, the Apex Court held that High Court

was in error in making reassessment of the

evidence and holding that the child was not an illegitimate child while dealing with the application for maintenance under section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court had, in its revisional jurisdiction, substituted its own findings and disturbed the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate on

the question of fact. This was not approved by the Apex Court and order of the High Court was set aside. In State of Karnataka vs. Appa Balu Ingale and others, 1993 Cri.L.J. 1029, the

Apex Court held that when the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had, on appreciation of

the evidence on record, reached a concurrent

finding that charge against the respondent accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt, ordinarily it was not open to the High

Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below by reappreciating the evidence in a revisional

jurisdiction. The Apex Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of

the High Court and restored that of the Appellate Court."

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State

of Maharashtra ..vs.. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh

Anand and others with Satish Kaur Sahni ..vs..

Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and others;

(2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 659; held that the

revisional powers of the High Court cannot be exercised

as second appellate power. In exercise of revisional

power the High Court cannot undertake indepth and

minute re-examination of entire evidence and upset

concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate court.

In the case of Raj Kumar ..vs.. State of Himachal

Pradesh; (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 76. In

para 10 of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

"10. In State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu it was

held that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the Sessions

Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no error of fact or law arrived at by the trial court or the Sessions Judge."

12. In the

case of Ghanshyam s/o Vithal

Garje ..vs.. State of Maharashtra; 2009 (1) Mh. L. J.

(Cri.) 299 in para 11 held that, "The Revisional Court

cannot reappreciate the evidence in the exercise of the

Revisional jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Duli Chand vs.

Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960, held that

jurisdiction of the High Court in Criminal Revisional

jurisdiction is severely restricted. It is held that the High

Court cannot embark upon reappreciation of evidence in

the the exercise of Revisional jurisdiction. It is also well

settled that the Revisional jurisdiction is normally to be

exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a

glaring defect int he procedure or there is a manifest

error or patent error committed in ignorance of law which

has resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The

concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed,

ordinarily, in the exercise of Revisional jurisdiction unless

it is demonstrated that the findings are based on

perfunctory appreciation and the process of finding is

without well grounded reasoning...."

13.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State

of Karnataka ..vs.. Appa Balu Ingale and others;

AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1126; held that the

concurrent findings arrived at by two Courts below are not

to be interferred with by the High Court in the absence of

any special circumstances or unless they are perverse.

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid

pronouncements of the Apex Court and this Court, the

present revision application required to be considered.

14. On going through the judgment and orders

passed by Courts below, both the Courts have

appreciated the statement of prosecutrix and her

evidence in examination-in-chief and cross-examination

and the same evidence has been accepted and the

applicant herein is convicted for the offence under Section

376 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the courts have held

that there is corroboration to the evidence of prosecutrix

from the evidence of PW6 Jaibai and PW7 Murlidhar.

Therefore, both the Courts below have held that evidence

of prosecutrix coupled with evidence of PW6 and PW7 is

sufficient to hold that the applicant has committed the

offence of rape and is liable to conviction.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant further

contended that thought the incident in question took

place at about 2.00 p.m. on the day of incident, the said

incident was not narrated by the prosecutrix to the other

two women, who were working in nearby fields and

secondly in spite of the alleged incident, the prosecutrix

remained in the field and continued working till evening

without disclosing the incident in question, which creates

doubt about the credibility of the evidence of prosecutrix.

In this respect, it has come on record that two other

women, who were also working in the field of same

owner, were working in a field which is after two fields

from the field in which the incident in question took place.

Therefore, it is not the case that two other women

labourers were working in the same field or immediately

in the next field but those were working in a field after

two fields from the field in which the prosecutrix was

working and where the incident in question had taken

place.

On careful perusal of of the deposition of the

prosecutrix, she has categorically stated that she shouted

for help and she tried to resist but then the accused took

her underneath Neem tree and committed rape. It is the

contention of accused that at least the prosecutrix should

have disclosed the incident to those two women working

in the nearby fields after she met them, is not accepted

by both the courts below. In normal course, narration of

such an incident would definitely damage the reputation

of the victim in the society and not only that it may also

create difficulties in future to the victim. That apart, with

apprehension in mind that if the incident is narrated to

other two women, they may tell the said incident to the

villagers or other members of the society, which may

have adverse effect to the prosecutrix and, therefore, the

said incident was not narrated by the prosecutrix to the

said women. The same has been accepted by both the

Courts below. Therefore, this contentions of the learned

counsel for the applicant is also required to be rejected.

16. Another contention of the learned counsel for

the applicant that till evening the prosecutrix continued to

work in the field is concerned, she was working in the the

said field as labour and with a fear and apprehension in

mind she did not disclose the incident till the evening to

anyone. However, in the evening she narrated the said

incident to her parents. Merely because she continued to

work from 2.00 p.m. till eventing would not throw the

case of prosecution and discard the evidence of the

prosecutrix when in unequivocal words she has stated

that accused committed rape on her.

17. Turning to the contention of the counsel for

the applicant that in the next day morning accused went

to the house of the prosecutrix and met father of the

prosecutrix and put forth proposal of marriage between

prosecutrix and accused, finds place in statements of PW6

Jaibai and PW7 Murlidhar under Section 161 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. Learned A.P.P. is right in placing

reliance on the cross-examination of the parents of the

prosecutrix, in which they have stated that the accused

came to their house, expressed his desire to get married

with the prosecutrix. There is delay in filing the First

Information Report because father of the accused told

parents of the prosecutrix that he will tell after three days

whether he is agreeable to the marriage of prosecutrix

and the accused, as stated by PW6 and PW7, has been

accepted by both the Courts below. The present case

stands on a different footing than other cases because

accused/applicant is nephew of the father of prosecutrix.

There is no reason for the parents of the prosecutrix to

rope in the accused/applicant in a false case when he is

directly in blood relation with the prosecutrix and her

father. As rightly concluded by the Courts below that in

normal course, parents of the prosecutrix will not go to

the extent of filing false First Information Report that too

against the accused, who is directly in relation with them.

18. On the point that Medical Report and Chemical

Analyzer's report are not conclusive, observations of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq ..vs.. State of

Uttar Pradesh can usefully be referred. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in para 5 observed as under:-

"Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of a prosecutrix is

not a matter of law, but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. Indeed, from place to place from age to age, from varying life-styles and behavioural complexes,

inferences from a given set of facts, oral and

circumstantial, may have to be drawn not with dead uniformity but realistic diversity lest rigidity in the shape of rule of law this area be

introduced through a new type of procedural tyranny. The same observation holds good regarding the presence or absence of injuries

on the person of aggressor or the aggressed."

Also, in the case of Karnel Singh (supra) the

Supreme Court held that, "Evidence of prosecutrix need

not be tested with same amount of suspicion as that of

accomplice. Rule of prudence that her evidence must be

corroborated in material particulars has no application."

By number of pronouncements of this Court as

well as Supreme Court, by this time it is well settled that

in rape case, evidence of prosecutrix stands on higher

footing than any other witness. If statement or evidence

of the prosecutrix inspires confidence that alone is

sufficient to hold the person guilty under Section 376 of

the Indian Penal Code and hence I do not find force in the

arguments advanced by learned counsel on the point of

Medical Report and Chemical Analyzer's report.

19. So far as delay in filing the First Information

Report is concerned, para 7 of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Karnel Singh (supra) can

be usefully referred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case held that the delay in lodging complaint in such case

does not necessarily indicate that the version of

prosecutrix is false. In the present case, the prosecution

has explained the delay and both the courts have

accepted the explanation offered by the prosecution.

20. Though learned counsel for the applicant

invited my attention to reported judgment of this Court in

the case of Nandlal Dattusing Pardeshi & Ors. (supra)

and in case of Ashok Mahadeo Mahajan (supra) cited

supra to contend that in revision there can be

appreciation and reappreciation of evidence, in the facts

of the present case, I find that both the Courts have

properly appreciated the evidence brought on record and

findings recorded by both the Courts are not perverse and

those are in consonance with the evidence brought on

record by prosecution.

21. Though learned counsel for the applicant

contended that in given set of facts and circumstances

and evidence brought on record by prosecution, it cannot

be convincingly said that the incident in question has

taken place and the accused has committed rape and also

medical evidence and Chemical Anaylers report do not

support the prosecution story and, therefore, lenient view

may be taken, his contention is required to be

appreciated in the light of pronouncement of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh ..vs..

Chandrika (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 638. It is

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, "The concept of

"plea bargaining" is not recognized and is against public

policy under our criminal justice system. Section 320

CrPC provides for compounding of certain offences with

the permission of the court and certain others even

without permission of the court. Except the above, the

concept of negotiated settlement in criminal cases is not

permissible. This method of short-circuiting the hearing

and deciding the criminal appeals or cases involving

serious offences requires no encouragement. Neither the

State nor the Public Prosecutor nor even the Judge can

bargain that evidence would not be led or appreciated in

consideration of getting flea-bite sentence by pleading

guilty. The Court has to decide it on merits. If the

accused confesses his guilt, an appropriate sentence is

required to be imposed. Further, the approach of the

court in appeal or revision should be to find out whether

the accused is guilty or not on the basis of the evidence

on record. If he is guilty, an appropriate sentence is

required to be imposed or maintained. If the appellant or

his counsel submits that he is not challenging the order of

conviction, as there is sufficient evidence to connect the

accused with the crime, then also the court's conscience

must be satisfied before passing the final order that the

said concession is based on the evidence on record. In

such cases, sentence commensurate with the crime

committed by the accused is required to be imposed.

Mere acceptance or admission of the guilt should not be a

ground for reduction of sentence. Nor can the accused

bargain with the court that as he is pleading guilty the

sentence be reduced."

22. In the present case though offence committed

by the applicant is heinous in nature, both the Courts

have taken a lenient view and the applicant is convicted

only for seven years. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid

observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am afraid

that the prayer of the applicant to release him on

sentence already undergone can be entertained.

23. Taking into consideration the impugned

judgment and order and also other material made

available for perusal, it clearly emerges that the evidence

of prosecutrix remains unshaken. There is further

corroboration to her evidence of PW6 Jaibai and PW7

Murlidhar.

There is no reason to falsely implicate the

applicant by prosecutrix or her parents since the accused

is nephew of PW7 Murlidhar. The accused is directly in

blood relation with the prosecutrix and by any stretch of

imagination, it cannot be even doubted that the

prosecutrix or her father would go the extent to make

false allegations. One thing is certain that the applicant

went to the house of the prosecutrix and put forth the

proposal of marriage, having been realised that he has

committed offence as alleged by prosecution on the

earlier date. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter

and fact that there are concurrent findings recorded by

courts below on appreciation of evidence brought on

record by the prosecution, no perversity is demonstrated

in those findings so as to take different view. Therefore,

the present revision application shall fail. There may be

some omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, still the main story of the

prosecution remains intact since the evidence of the

prosecutrix has been accepted in toto by courts below

and also courts below have relied upon evidence of PW6

Jaibai and PW7 Murlidhar for corroboration with the

evidence of the prosecutrix.

In addition to the above, it is also required to

be noted that the offence in question is not an ordinary

offence. It is a heinous offence leaving deep impact on

the mind of the victim. Point of view of the society

towards the victim of such incident is always indifferent

that too for no fault on her part. In the present case, loss

caused to the life and reputation of the victim/prosecutrix

cannot go unattended by acquitting the applicant, more

particularly when there are concurrent findings recorded

by the courts below. The revision application is devoid of

merits and the same deserves to be rejected.

24. In view of above, the revision application

stands rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands

vacated.

Misc. Criminal Applications, if any, stand

disposed of in view of rejection of main application.

JUDGE

kahale