1

CRA-AD-175-2024

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-AD-175-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: September 11, 2025

‘U’ (name withheld) .....Appellant (s)

Vs.

Harjeet Singh @ Bagga and another ......Respondent(s)

CORAM:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI

Present: Mr. P.K.S Phoolka, Advocate for

for the appellant/prosecutrix/complainant.

Respondent No.1 produced in custody with counsel

Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate

Mr. J.P.S. Brar, Advocate (through VC)

Ms. Sandisha, AAG Punjab.

0000

RAMESH KUMARI    J.    

1. The present appeal is preferred by the

appellant/complainant/prosecutrix (hereinafter referred as ‘prosecutrix’) under

Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 419(4) of BNSS) by the PW01

prosecutrix against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.02.2024 rendered by the

then learned Judge, Special Court, Bhatinda, Punjab in case FIR No.71, dated

19.05.2022 registered under Sections 376, 506 IPC at Police Station Cantt.

District Bhatinda, whereby respondent No.1/accused Harjeet Singh @ Bagga

(hereinafter referred as accused) is acquitted of charges framed against him

under Sections 376(2) and 506 IPC.

2

CRA-AD-175-2024

FACTS OF PROSECUTION CASE

2. (i) The facts of the case of the prosecution are that letter Ex. PW02/A

bearing No.12.05.2022 from Army authorities was received by SSP, Bhatinda,

inter alia, alleging that PW02 GS (name withheld being husband of prosecutrix,

in order to conceal the identity of prosecutrix) is serving in the Army and

deployed in Jammu, his family is residing in ‘BM’ (name of place withheld),

Tehsil ‘N’ (again name of place withheld, to conceal the identity of

prosecutrix). In the letter Ex. PW02/A, it was alleged that Bagga Singh son of

Sewak Singh (respondent No.1) is black0mailing his wife for the last three

months. He is repeatedly using abusive language and issuing threats to the

family of solider due to which PW02 ‘GS’ is unable to perform his duties being

under extreme stress. The said application was marked vide Endorsement Ex.

PW06/A to DSP (Crime against Women), Bhatinda, and further marked to SI

Deepinder Kaur vide Endorsement Ex. PW06/B. SI Deepinder Kaur recorded

the statement of prosecutrix vide Ex. PW01/A in the presence of her husband

PW02‘GS’, and recommended registration of FIR vide her report Ex. PW06/C

dated 12.05.2022 and submitted to DSP, who proved her report vide separate

report Ex. PW06/D dated 14.05.2022 sent to SSP Bhatinda, thereupon, SSP

Bhatinda recommended SHO, PS Cantt for registration of FIR and FIR Ex.

PW06/E was registered.

2. (ii) The PW01 prosecutrix in her statement Ex.PW01/A to SI Deepinder

Kaur, alleged that they had constructed PG near Sant Kabir Girls college,

Adesh Hospital, where Bagga Singh was working as a labourer. About two

months ago, ants came over her body and she went to a room to change her

clothes, where accused Bagga Singh followed her and raped her. He threatened

3

CRA-AD-175-2024

that if she disclosed the occurrence to anyone, he would kill her family. She got

scared and did not disclose the occurrence to anyone. Thereafter, accused

started sexually exploiting her. On 30.04.2022, she told about the occurrence to

her husband, who thereafter reported the matter to his Battalion Commander

whereupon letter was sent to the SSP, Bathinda for initiating action against the

accused.

INVESTIGATION

3. After registration of FIR Ex. PW06/E, the statement of the

prosecution Ex.PA under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also got recorded before

learned JMIC.

Prosecutrix was medically got examined on 27.05.2022 and PW04

Dr. Harneet Jaura, issued MLR PW04/A. She also took the medical sample of

prosecutrix and handed over the same to police.

On 10.06.2022 PW07 0ASI Jasbir Singh recorded the statement of

PW02 ‘GS’. On 02.07.2022, accused was arrested and formal memo of arrest

PW07/A and personal search memo PW07/E were prepared.

Accused was got medically examined on 03.07.2022 from

PW03/DR. Deep Rattan and he issued MLR PW03/A regarding the potency of

accused and gave the opinion that “there is nothing to suggest that Harpreet

Singh @ Bagga is unable to perform the act of sexual intercourse”. He also

took the blood sample of the accused and handed over to the police vide Memo

PW07/C.

During the course of the investigation, medical samples of accused

and prosecutrix were deposited with MHC, who sent the same to FSL. DNA

report PX was obtained.

4

CRA-AD-175-2024

The ownership record in the form of report PW07/E from Patwari

regarding the place of alleged occurrence, was also obtained.

PRESENTATION   OF   CHALLAN   AND   COMMITMENT

PROCEEDINGS

4. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was

presented against accused in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate.

The learned Illaqa Magistrate complied with Section 207 Cr.P.C.

by supplying copies of challan form and accompanying documents to the

accused and committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated

08.09.2022.

CHARGES

5. Finding a prima facie case under Sections 376(2), 506 IPC,

accused was charged under these sections vide order dated 22.09.2022 to which

accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During trial, prosecution examined eight witnesses. On

15.12.2023, prosecution closed the evidence.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

6. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

and incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence was put to him to which

he pleaded false implication and claimed innocence. He took the plea that he

has no concern with the present case. He had not committed any forceful sexual

assault on prosecutrix. The allegations levelled by PW02 ‘GS’ and prosecutrix

are false and fabricated. The prosecutrix has levelled false allegations of

possession of fire0arms and videos to harass him. The allegation of bleeding are

5

CRA-AD-175-2024

found to be false from examination of prosecutrix. Without examining any

evidence, accused closed the defence evidence.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION FRAMED BY LD. TRIAL COURT

7. Learned trial Court formulated the following poin t for

determination:

“Whether two months before 30.04.2022, accused has been

repeatedly and continuously committed rape with the prosecutrix

without her consent and against her will and criminally

intimidated her with dire consequences.”

After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor and defence

counsel and perusal of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court came

to the conclusion that accused is falsely implicated. Prosecution failed to prove

the charged offences against the accused. Point for determination was decided

against the prosecution and accused was acquitted of charges.

CONTENTION OF PROSECUTRIX COUNSEL

8. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix has challenged the acquittal of

accused inter alia on the following grounds and contended that:0

i. that the judgment of acquittal is erroneous in law and on the

facts of the case;

ii. that the judgment of acquittal is against law and fact and is

based upon mere conjectures and surmises;

iii. that the prosecution case is duly proved as it led to stringent

and cogent evidence and

iv. learned trial Court ignored the facts and circumstances and

version of the prosecutrix and other witnesses and giving due

weightage to the testimonies and other evidence in totality, erred in

acquitting the accused, whereas the prosecutrix has in her

statement brought home the guilt of the accused. In support of his

6

CRA-AD-175-2024

contention, learned defence counsel relied upon the testimony of

prosecutrix recorded in the Court ;

v. Medical evidence also supported the version of prosecution

and ingredient of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC,

are proved and that

vi. accused failed to rebut the prosecution allegation and cannot

be acquitted and he is liable to be convicted.

Learned counsel for the prosecutrix prayed for setting aside the

judgment of acquittal and conviction of accused under Sections 376 and 506

IPC.

CONTENTION OF DEFENCE COUNSEL

9. Sh. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate and Sh. J.P.S. Brar, Advocate

through VC contended that the statement of prosecutrix and her husband are

not trustworthy. The learned trial Court scrutinized the statement of PW01

prosecutrix and her husband0PW02’GS’. The discrepancies in their testimonies

are pointed out by learned trial Court in its well reasoned judgment. PW01

prosecutrix in her testimony before the Court made a lot of improvements

which are also noted down by learned trial Court while appreciating the

evidence. Therefore, they vehemently prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

STATEMENT OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES

10. As observed earlier, the prosecution has examined eight (08)

witnesses.

(i) PW01 is prosecutrix herself and PW02 is her husband ‘GS’. On the

complaint of PW02 ‘GS’, letter Ex.PW06/A was written by PW08 Major Akash

Bansal on behalf of Commanding Officer of their Battalion in their official

capacity. This fact is proved by PW080Major Akash Bansal, who stated that

7

CRA-AD-175-2024

PW02 ‘GS’ was working as Lance Hawildar in his Unit and requested him in

official capacity to bring his personal difficulty to the notice of SSP Bathinda

so that his case can be taken on priority basis and he wrote letter Ex.PW02/A.

ii) PW06 SI Rupinder Kaur proved endorsements on let ter

Ex.PW02/A, of recording statement Ex.PW01/A of PW01, recommended

registration of FIR and get prosecutrix medically examined. She proved

following documents in her statement in Court:0

a) Ex.PW06/A 0 Endorsement of SSP on letter (PW02/A) vide

which inquiry was marked to Ms. Heena

Gupta, DSP

b) Ex.PW06/B 0 Endorsement vide which inquiry was marked to

her by Ms. Heena Gupta, DSP

c) Ex.PW01/A 0 Statement of PW01 prosecutrix.

d) Ex.PW06/C 0 her report for recommending registration of

FIR.

e) Ex.PW06/D 0 Report of DSP Heena Gupta, approving her

report PW0 6/C for recommendation of

registration of FIR.

f) Ex.PW06/E 0 FIR

iii) PW040Dr. Haneet Jaura medically examined PW01 and proved

MLR Ex.PW04/A. She also took medical sample of PW01 and handed over the

same to the police. She also proved DNA report Ex.‘PX’ and specifically stated

that as per DNA report, no human semen was detected in the vaginal swabs of

the prosecutrix, so in her opinion, possibility of sexual assault could not be

ruled out with the prosecutrix.

iv) PW03 Dr. Deep Rattan medically examined the accu sed and

proved the MLR Ex.PW03/A and deposed about capacity of accused to perform

8

CRA-AD-175-2024

sexual intercourse. He also took into possession blood sample of accused and

handed over same to the police.

v) PW070ASI Jasveer Singh arrested the accused and also got the

accused medico0legally examined.

vi) PW06 recorded statement of PW02 ‘GS’ under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

and he arrested the accused. He also obtained report of ownership of house

regrading the place of occurrence. He proved following documents:0

a) Ex.PW07/A 0 Memo of arrest of accused.

b) Ex.PW07/B 0 Memo of personal search of accused.

c) Ex.PW07/C 0 Memo vide which he took into possession the

blood sample of accused.

d) Ex.PW07/D 0 Application for getting the report regarding

ownership of place of occurrence.

e) Ex.PW07/E 0 Report of Patwari regarding the ownership of

and possession of place of occurrence by

prosecutrix as per her share.

vii) PW05, ASI Rajinder Kaur proved the link evidence. She got PW01

prosecutrix medico0legally examined from Civil Hospital, Bathinda, directed

Lance Gaganpreet Kaur to get the medical sample of prosecutrix from doctor

and deposited the same with the MHC, prepared site plan Ex.PW05/A. She also

took into possession medical sample of prosecutrix from Lance Gaganpreet

Kaur vide memo Ex.PW05/B and deposited the same with the MHC.

Since in the DNA report Ex.PX human semen was not deducted in

the vaginal swabs of prosecutrix, therefore, statement of PW05, ASI Rajinder

Kaur is not of much importance.

9

CRA-AD-175-2024

viii. The most important is that testimony of prosecutrix herself. Her

evidence is carefully scrutinized by the learned trial Court. Her statement

reveals that she is married woman and having two children and her husband

PW02 is posted in Jammu as Havildar. She in her statement before the Court on

Oath deposed as under:0

“We were constructing a paying guest house near Sant Kabir Girls

College near Adesh Hospital, where accused Harjeet Singh @

Bagga Singh used to come and work as labourer. I used to look

after the construction work at the site. Sand was lying at the spot

due to construction work. On one day, 1 was attacked by number

of aunts on my body and they were all over my body and clothes

and started to bite me. I went inside a room which has not gate as

construction work was going for removing the aunts and I started

to undress myself for that purpose then suddenly accused Bagga

Singh came from behind and forcefully overpowered me and then

committed the rape with me against my consent and will be at the

said place. I even tried to raise the alarm but the accused had

overpowered me and even the accused made the video of the rape

committed by him with me in his mobile phone. The accused was

carrying a pistol and he threatened me that if I disclosed about the

said incident to anyone then he will kill me and my family and he

also made viral the above video recorded by him of the rape so I

could not tell anyone about the The incident earlier being under

the fear of the accused. The accused started to black mail me and

then committed rape with me on many occasions by blackmailing

me and threatening me. Accused used to consume some intoxicant

substances before committing rape with me and then after

consuming the same, committed rape with me many times. The

accused had raped me in such a manner on many occasions that

even bleeding had started from my private parts. Then on

30.04.2022, I gathered myself and told about the said incident to

10

CRA-AD-175-2024

my husband about rape and blackmailing by accused Bagga

Singh. My husband told about the said incident to superior officer

and they had written a letter to police in this regard. Police then

recorded my statement Ex.PWI/A regarding the said incident

which bears my signature at Point A and said statement was

attested by my husband by putting his signature at Point B. Police

visited the place of occurrence, where accused committed rape

with me. I had been shown the place of occurrence to the police.

The police had taken me before the doctor at CH Bathinda, where

my medical examination was conducted. Accused had firstly

committed rape with me in the month of February 2022 and

thereafter committed repeatedly/rape with me against my will and

consent. Accused continuously blackmailed and then raped me on

the pretext of making viral my videos and photos in which he

committed the rape with me and also demanded money from me. I

was also produced before Ld. Illaqa Magistrate for getting

recorded statement/U/S 164 Cr.Р.С.”

She also proved her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C

vide Ex.‘PA’.

ix) PW02 ‘GS’ in his examination0in0chief deposed about the facts

whatever was narrated to him by PW01 prosecutrix.

SCRUTINY OF STATEMENT OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND

ANALYSIS

11. (i) PW01 is subjected to cross0examination and the learned trial Court

rightly pointed out in para No.14 of the impugned judgment, regarding the

improvements made by her while recording her testimony in the Court, i.e.

which is not stated by her in her statement Ex.PW01/A recorded by PW06 SI

Rupinder Kaur and in her statement Ex.PA recorded under Section 164 CR.P.C,

which are as follows:0

11

CRA-AD-175-2024

“a) That the accused overpowered her and made a video of the

rape in his mobile phone.

b) That the accused was carrying a pistol with him at the time of

occurrence.

c) That the accused threatened her to disseminate her video.

d) That the accused committed rape with her in the month of

February, 2022, however, the month is missing in her previous

statement.

e) That the accused blackmailed her and continuously raped her

on the pretext of disseminating her video and photographs.

f) That she tried to raise alarm but accused overpowered her.

g) That the accused raped her violently on many occasions.

h) That even bleeding occurred from her private parts.”

11.(ii) During cross examination, PW01 prosecutrix admitted the

following facts:0

a) On the first floor of the PG, there are two rooms;

b) her nephew S used to work and visit the construction site though he, later

on, stopped overlooking the work;

c) number of other persons and mason used to work at the construction site.

d) in the month of March, 2022, 'Akand Path' was0organized to open the

restaurant in the building, where her relatives and friends came and attended;

e) her husband keeps mobile phone even at the station of his posting and

she had been regularly in touch with him;

f) the building is surrounded by main road, 203 other paying guests and 607

grocery shops;

g) her house is situated in densely populated area she used to visit PG at

8.00 AM and stayed there till 5.00/6.00 PM;

12

CRA-AD-175-2024

h) She did not raise hue and cry when she was attacked by the ants;

i) 304 labourers were present at the PG on the day of occurrence;

j) she did not raise any alarm when the accused came from behind and

caught hold of her;

k) PW01 also during cross0examination stated that accused was not expelled

from the work after the first occurrence of sexual assault and he kept reporting

for work on the following days;

l) she did not move any application, when the accused demanded money

from her and

m) Army officials and their families have free medical treatment but she did

not visit Cantt. Hospital for the treatment of her bleeding. She did not visit any

doctor regarding the bleeding in her private parts.

Had the accused committed the alleged offence, PW01 would have

informed her husband telephonically because PW02 when subjected to cross0

examination stated that he used to speak with his wife during the days of

occurrence on regular basis.

PW02 ‘GS’ also stated that accused was employed by him in

December, 2021 and from December, 2021 to 1st May, 2022, he (PW02) visited

his house twice. Therefore, prosecutrix had the occasion to inform her husband

when he visited home but her silence speaks volumes against her. Had the

occurrence of commission of offence of rape of PW01 taken place in February

2022, and continued till April 2022, PW01 would have informed her husband

about it, when he visited the home. Therefore, learned trial Court rightly

doubted the testimony of PW01 prosecutrix that she did not disclose the

13

CRA-AD-175-2024

occurrence to her husband during those occasions despite having ample

opportunity and this weaken her testimony in the Court.

PW02 ‘GS’ also admitted that 408 persons including labourers and

mason were employed for construction of the PG. Prosecutrix could have

raised alarm as 304 other labourers were present there and it is entirely

impossible that a labourer would have indulged in sexual intercourse with the

prosecutrix in a densely populated area time and again without any protest from

prosecutrix. Had the offence been taken place, she could have informed her

nephew ‘S’.

Moreover, had the alleged offence being committed by the

accused, PW01 would have expelled him from work but he continued attending

the construction work. This also belies the allegation of rape against the

accused.

Had she been suffering from any bleeding from her private part

due to the alleged commission of offence of rape, she would have approached

the medical authority of Cantt. Hospital.

11.(iii) PW01 prosecutrix during cross examination also stated that the

accused was holding the pistol in one hand and the mobile phone in other hand

and caught hold of her from behind. It is entirely impossible that a person

would hold a pistol in one hand, mobile in another and caught hold her from

behind and indulged in sexual act and also to film it. Her evasive replies further

creates doubts in her testimony. She expressed ignorance whether the room on

the first floor was given on rent to two girls and they used to reside on the first

floor in the month of January, 2022. She is also evasive whether her husband

visited her on 06.03.2022. PW01 prosecutrix expressed ignorance that wife of

14

CRA-AD-175-2024

accused moved an application to the police authority regarding her and

accused. She during cross0examination stated that, “I cannot state whether on

03.05.2022, the accused made a call to her and there was long conversation

between them.” Meaning thereby, she had not denied her long telephonic

conversation with the accused. Her long telephonic conversation with the

accused without any reason and justification, also belies the allegation of rape

against the accused.

11.(iv) PW01 prosecutrix during cross0examination, stated that she

used to commute by bus and but denied that accused used to pick her from her

house, whereas PW02 ‘GS’ stated that accused used to pick his wife from his

house couple of times to drop her at the PG. PW02 ‘GS’ further stated that

accused used to take his children for providing medicines at Garg Hospital

couple of times. PW02 also stated that he and his wife were regularly in touch

with the accused and other labourers during the time of construction. This

proved the proximity of accused with PW01 prosecutrix. PW02 ‘GS’ is evasive

to disclose the name of wife of the accused as well as expressed ignorance and

further admitted that he had conversation with the wife of the accused couple

of times. He is also evasive as to whether the wife of accused moved an

application against his wife and the accused.

11. (v) The above said scrutiny of statements of PW01 prosecutrix and

PW02 ‘GS’ proved that their testimonies are not trustworthy. For the purpose of

conviction of the accused for the offence of rape on the basis of sole testimony

of the prosecutrix, the evidence has to be of sterling quality, unassailable,

highly credible and inherently truthful, which can be accepted at its face value

without hesitation and in the absence of any corroboration. The evidence of

15

CRA-AD-175-2024

PW01 lacks truthfulness and consistency. She failed to withstand strenuous

cross0examination, which creates doubt in her testimony. Her evasive replies

about the complaint moved by wife of the accused against accused and her

failure to inform about the occurrence to her husband when he visits her from

February 2022 to April 2022 creates doubts in her testimony, on the other hand

proved that her statement is not truthful and consistent. She made a lot of

improvements as discussed above and also noted down by learned trial Court.

The learned trial Court after carefully scrutinizing examination0in0chief and

cross0examination of PW01 prosecutrix and PW02 ‘GS’ rightly came to the

conclusion that PW01 prosecutrix had been in a voluntary relationship with the

accused and the learned trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that

relationship of PW01 with accused was consensus and no force or violence was

used by the accused.

12. Moreover, it is basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that

accused is proved to be innocent unless proves contrary. Judgment of acquittal

in favour of accused further fortifies innocence in his favour.

The Reference can be to the observations by Hon’ble the Supreme

Court in Harijana Thirupala and others V/s. Public Prosecutor, High Court

of A.P. reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court p. 2821 and in the case of Kunju

Mohammed V/s. State of Kerala reported in JT 2003 (7) SCC 114 .The Apex

Court in the above cases has held as under:

"Doubtless the High Court in appeal either against an order of

acquittal or conviction as a Court of first appeal has full power to

review the evidence to reach its own independent conclusion.

However, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal lightly or

merely because one other view is possible, because with the

16

CRA-AD-175-2024

passing of an order of acquittal presumption of innocence in

favour of the accused gets reinforced and strengthened. The High

Court would not be justified to interfere with order of acquittal

merely because it feels that sitting as a trial Court would have

proceeded to record a conviction: a duty is cast on the High Court

while reversing an order of acquittal to examine and discuss the

reasons given by the trial court to acquit the accused and then to

dispel those reasons. If the High Court fails to make such an

exercise the judgment will suffer from serious infirmity."

Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jafarudheen and others V/s.

State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 in para 25 held that :0

"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by

invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate  Court has

to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a

possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been

analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to

the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus,

the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the

order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the

presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened

but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures

in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough

scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters".

In  Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs The State Of Gujarat reported

in 1996(9) SCC 225 in para07, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :

"7. Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that

the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal

was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the

question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial

17

CRA-AD-175-2024

Court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not.

Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal

of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions.

This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view

other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately 

arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence

cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an

order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire

approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was

patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly

untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the

appellant Court is first required to seek an answer to the question

whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong,

manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the

appellant Court answers the above question in the negative the

order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the

appellant Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of

acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above

infirmities it can then D and then only D reappraise the evidence to

arrive at its own conclusions. In keeping with the above principles

we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial

Court are sustainable or not".

In Mahavirsinh V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in

2016 (10) SCC 220, the Apex Court in para012 cautioned that the High

Courts to remain very cautious in interfering with any appeal against

acquittal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere

with the order of acquittal.

In Murugesan v. State, [(2012) 10 SCC 383: (AIR 2013 SC

274)] it is categorically held by Hon’ble Apex Court that only in cases

where conclusion recorded by the trial court is not a possible view, then

18

CRA-AD-175-2024

only the High Court can interfere and reverse the acquittal to that of

conviction. In the said judgment, distinction from that of "possible view"

to "erroneous view" or "wrong view" is explained. And it is held that if the

view taken by the trial court is a "possible view", the High Court is not to

reverse the acquittal to that of the conviction.

13. On careful scrutiny of testimonies of prosecutrix (PW01) and

PW02 ‘GS’, we are of view that the evidence led by the prosecution before

the learned trial Court is not sufficient to prove the guilt against the

accused. Had she been allegedly raped by accused, she would have

approached the police then and there and would have got herself

medically examined and would have informed her husband when he visits

home, would have expelled accused from work, would have cut off her

relationship with him, would not have allowed him to take her children to

provide medical care. There is delay of two months in registration of FIR

which is un0explained. She was allegedly sexuall assault in February 2022

whereas her husband remained with her twice or thrice from December

2021 to April 2022, this also negates the allegations of sexual assault/rape.

Wife of accused had already moved application against the prosecutrix

and accused. The learned trial Court rightly held that the relationship of

prosecutrix with the accused was consensus and there is no other view

possible except the view in favour of innocence of the accused and no

interference in the judgment of learned trial Court is called for.

14. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the

learned trial Court committed no illegality in acquitting the accused.

19

CRA-AD-175-2024

15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merit,

and is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 16.02.2024 passed by the

learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, is hereby upheld. Accused who is

produced in custody today in the Court, be set at liberty.

16.Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) (RAMESH KUMARI)

                   JUDGE             JUDGE

September 11, 2025

sonia arora

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes / No

Whether reportable: Yes / No