1. Heard the application for leave to appeal. This is an application u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the Petitioner/state seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.9.2012 u/s 366, and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No. 215 of 2011.
2. Perused the impugned judgment and record.
3. The admitted fact of the case is that the challan has separately been filed against co-accused Mangu Bheel and Peetam Bhil in the Juvenile Court, Guna.
4. The case of prosecution in brief, is that on 27.4.2011 at about 12 in the night, accused Pappu along other co-accused Mangu and Peetam entered the house of prosecutrix while she was sleeping on the cot and accused Pappu gagging her with the help of safi, forced her to sit on the motorcycle with the help of co-accused and took her to a lonely house where, she was kept and repeatedly raped by accused Pappu. Thereafter on 2.5.2011 the prosecutrix could rescue herself somehow from their custody and appraised the incident to her parents. On the next day, she along with her brother Pappu went to PS Jamner where a written report Ex.P/11 was lodged on the basis of which, FIR Ex.P/12 was recorded at Crime No. 117 of 2011 u/s 366 and 376/34 of IPC and matter was taken for investigation by sending the prosecutrix for medical examination and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC from where, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the charges were framed against respondent accused Pappu alias Daulat Ram u/s 366 and 376/34 of IPC. Statements of ten witnesses were got recorded on behalf of the prosecution. By the impugned judgment, the accused was acquitted as stated herein above.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has got the statements of ten witnesses recorded. In para. 1 and 2, the prosecutrix aged 22 years has deposed that when she was sleeping on a cot outside her house in the night there came two to three persons who took her forcibly on a motor-cycle gagging her and blind folding her with a cloth. Although she screamed for help yet no one came to her rescue. Then she was rapped by the accused. The fact that the prosecutrix screamed for help and she was gagged and blinded forcibly with a cloth was no where on the record in the FIR Ex.P-11 and her statement Ex.D-4. In view of the aforesaid facts, it appears here that the prosecutrix has tried to conceal her consent by fabricating a false story. If she had really screamed for help, certainly people nearby would have come for her help. The report in this case has been lodged in the Police Station after a week of the said incident. Further when she was found missing by her parents in the morning, they did not make any complaint of her missing in Police Station or elsewhere.
7. In para 8 of her statement, it has come on record that she had been visiting two-three villages with the accused. Moreover, several contradictions have come on record during cross-examination. Further more even no injury has been found on her body in her medical examination. These very facts make her statement incredible.
8. Having considered all the facts and circumstances deeply, the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. Hence, the impugned judgment requires no interference. Therefore, leave can not be granted for filing the appeal. Hence, this application for leave to file appeal is accordingly dismissed.
