Rajasthan High Court
Kumari Meena vs Shivnarain @ Banti And Anr on 22 August, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:35263]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 30/2005
Kumari Meena daughter of Shri Bhorya R/o Bajirpur P.S. Vajirpur
Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shivnarain @ Banti son of Pannalal, R/o Vajirpur Tehsil
Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur
2. State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan, Adv.
For State : Mr. Suresh Kumar, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 22/08/2024
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the
petitioner-victim (for short 'the victim') under Sections 397 read
with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 06.10.2004
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapurcity in Sessions
Case No.13/2004, whereby the said court acquitted the
respondent No.1-accused (for short 'the accused') for the offence
under Section 376 IPC.
Learned counsel for the victim submits that victim had
submitted a tehriri report regarding rape committed by the
accused but trial court had not appreciated the evidence led by
the prosecution and wrongly acquitted the accused. Learned
counsel for the victim also submits that statement of prosecutrix
was well corroborated by the medical evidence but trial court had
[2024:RJ-JP:35263] (2 of 3) [CRLR-30/2005]
not appreciated in right perspective. Learned counsel for the
victim also submits that in the evidence of doctor, it was clearly
mentioned that rape was committed and at that time, age of the
prosecutrix was 16 years. So, consent is immaterial. Learned
counsel for the victim also submits that Investigating Officer also
corroborated the investigation conducted by him. So, judgment of
the trial court be set aside and accused be convicted for the
offence under Section 376 IPC.
Learned counsel for the accused has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the victim and submits that trial
court while acquitting the accused well appreciated the evidence
led by the prosecution. At the time of alleged incident, age of the
prosecutrix as per medical evidence was 15-17 years. There is
variation of about 2 years. Prosecutrix submitted a tehriri report
after inordinate delay of 9 days from the date of alleged incident
and prosecution story was not beyond reasonable doubt because
at the time of incident, family members of the prosecutrix were at
home. So, no rape was committed and prosecutrix submitted a
tehriri report after giving birth to a child. So, trial court rightly
acquitted the accused. So, present revision petition be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the victim as well as learned counsel for the accused.
Trial court while appreciating the evidence of the victim and
other persons clearly mentioned that statement of the victim was
not trustworthy because she had not submitted a tehriri report in
time. She submitted a tehriri report after giving birth to a child.
Age of the prosecutrix was not proved by the prosecution. So, in
my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in
[2024:RJ-JP:35263] (3 of 3) [CRLR-30/2005]
acquitting the accused. So, present revision petition being devoid
of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed
accordingly.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /7
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
