Crl.A. No. 353 of 2005 1

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 of 2005

STATE OF M.P.    ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

 POORAN SINGH & ORS.    .....   RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. We  have  head  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant.

2. The respondents despite service have not put in  

appearance.

3. We have gone through the judgment of th High Court  

very carefully with the help of the learned counsel.

4. Several  reasons  have  been  recorded  by  the  High  

Court  in  rendering  the  judgment  of  acquittal;   they  

being  that  the  prosecutrix  herself  had  filed  an  

affidavit disowning the prosecution story and the fact  

that no rape had been committed has also been confirmed  

by  her  father-in-law  who  was  examined  as  prosecution  

witness.  Likewise, the doctor did not find any evidence  

of  rape.   It  has  also  come  in  the  evidence  of  the  

prosecutrix that after the rape had been committed she

Crl.A. No. 353 of 2005 2

had returned to the village and had seen the accused  

sitting on the chabuthra and this fact had been pointed  

out by her to her husband, but despite this information,  

the First Information Report was lodged after a delay of  

48  hours.   We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  reasons  

recorded by the High court that have been made the basis  

of  the  acquittal,  are  germane  to  the  evidence.   We,  

accordingly, decline to interfere in this matter.

5. The appeal is dismissed.

..............................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

..............................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI MARCH 15, S2011.