There is number even any discussion on the evidence adduced, and practically on the sole ground that the mother of the prosecutrix accepted that the victim was of easy virtues, the acquittal has been directed.
The prosecutrix asked them as to who they were and they disclosed their identity.
The factual position in a nutshell is that while the prosecutrix was alone in her house, at about 11.00 a.m. on 21.5.1987 since her mother had gone out to market for purchasing vegetables, the respondents who belonged to her locality came to her house, knocked the door.
After sometime her mother came home and knocked the door and hearing the voice of knocking, the accused persons ran away and climbed over the roof.
To similar effect was the plea of accused Mannoo.
Placing reliance on the evidence of the prosecutrix and her mother who were examined as PWs 1 and 2 respectively learned trial Judge found accused persons guilty, companyvicted and sentenced them as afore noted.
2004 Supp 6 SCR 585 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
While they were climbing, the mother had seen them and she started shouting and hearing it one Vimalesh Kumar Verma of the locality came there and he also saw both the accused persons running away.
The prosecutrix was sent to the District Hospital for medical check up.
Written report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station at 3.10 p.m. Investigation was undertaken.
After companypletion of investigation, change sheet was filed and accused persons were sent up for trial.
The companyviction and the sentence were questioned by the accused person persons by failing an appeal before the High Court and as numbered above the High Court directed their acquittal.
The accused persons were also sent for medical examination and their clothing were sent for chemical examination.
In the additional statements submitted during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code respondent Papoo stated that the prosecutrix was number having a good character and since her house was in front of his house, he and his family members asked them to leave that place and hence the false case was foisted.
The prosecutrix refused to open the door as her mother was number at home.
The Vth Additional District and Sections Judge, Sitapur found them guilty and sentenced each to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.
She was first raped by accused respondent Mannoo and thereafter by accused respondent Pappoo.
But both the accused persons went to the neighbouring house and came to the roof of her house and jumped into the companyrtyard and showed her a tamancha.
The respondents were charged for alleged companymission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
The accused persons pleaded innocence.
The State of U.P. has questioned in this appeal companyrectness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow directing acquittal of the respondents hereafter referred to ase the accused .
