State of Punjab Vs. Jang Bahadur & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 806 of 1996
Petitioner: State of Punjab
Respondent: Jang Bahadur & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 806 of 1996
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, CJI, D.P. WADHWA & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 05, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 376 read with Section 114 – Rape – Acquittal – Interference if called for – Trial court appreciating entire evidence and acquitting the accused – High Court also confirming acquittal and refusing leave to appeal – State’s appeal against acquittal. Held trial court’s decision based on appreciation of evidence not being unreasonable, erroneous or perverse, no interference called for.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The respondents were tried for offences under Section 376(g) and 376 read with 114 IPC on the allegation that on 12th Novem-ber, 1993 they had committed rape on the prosecutrix, PW-1. The trial court after recording evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, vide judgment dated 7th September, 1994 acquitted the respondents of both the charges. The High Court declined to grant leave. Opining that the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court was well founded, High Court dismissed an appeal against acquittal on 29th May, 1995. The State is in appeal by special leave against the said order of the High Court.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the record. In our opinion, the view taken by the trial court cannot be said to be either unreasonable or erroneous, muchless perverse. The appreciation of evidence by the trial court is proper and the High Court under the circumstances was justified in declining leave to file appeal against acquittal. We are not persuaded to take a different view. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
1. The respondents were tried for offences under Section 376(g) and 376 read with 114 IPC on the allegation that on 12th Novem-ber, 1993 they had committed rape on the prosecutrix, PW-1. The trial court after recording evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, vide judgment dated 7th September, 1994 acquitted the respondents of both the charges. The High Court declined to grant leave. Opining that the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court was well founded, High Court dismissed an appeal against acquittal on 29th May, 1995. The State is in appeal by special leave against the said order of the High Court.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the record. In our opinion, the view taken by the trial court cannot be said to be either unreasonable or erroneous, muchless perverse. The appreciation of evidence by the trial court is proper and the High Court under the circumstances was justified in declining leave to file appeal against acquittal. We are not persuaded to take a different view. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
