The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Suneel Yadav
2021 Latest Caselaw 3850 MP

                                                                     01

                The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
                        MCRC 27397 of 2021
                   ( State of MP vs. Sunil Yadav)
Gwalior, Dtd. 2/08/2021
         Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General for
applicant/State.


Per Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal:

        This application has been filed by the State under Section

378(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment

dated    28/01/2021    passed   by   the   First Additional    Sessions

Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Ganj Basoda, Distt. Vidisha, in

Sp.S.T. No.844/2016 acquitting the respondent from the charges

under Sections 457, 354 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In brief the prosecution case is that on 19.2.2016 prosecutrix

aged about 16 years lodged a written FIR at police Station, Dehat,

Basoda, to the effect that for the last one and half months she has been

living with her elder sister Priti Rajput at Gali No.5, Rajendra Nagar,

Basoda. Respondent/accused Sunil Yadav used to tease her while

going and coming back. On the date of incident at 7 pm by crossing

the wall accused entered the house and with bad intention caught hold

of her. When she raised alarm, her sister Priti and brother-in-law

Chandrapal and Amarjeet came there. On seeing them, accused

started running away and in the process fell down on stone and

sustained injury on his head. On her written complaint, FIR under

Sections 456, 354 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act was

registered. Respondent/accused was arrested and after investigation,

charge-sheet has been filed against him. Charges under Sections 457,

354 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act were framed against

him and trial conducted.

The prosecutrix in her deposition described that on the date of

incident when she was preparing food, accused entered the house by

jumping over the wall and started tearing her clothes. On her cries,

her sister and nearby persons came there and caught hold of accused

and handed him over to the police, but in the FIR lodged by

prosecutrix she only mentioned that accused caught hold of her but

did not mention anything in regard to the incident of tearing of her

clothes. Charges like such are very easy to level, but difficult to rebut

and in this type of case, strict scrutiny and appreciation of evidence of

prosecutrix is required. The prosecutrix in para 8 of her cross-

examination has admitted that she did not know the accused

beforehand and name of the accused was mentioned by her in Ex.P/4

on the basis of information given by police personnel.

Beside that, as per written FIR of the prosecutrix, her brother-

in-law Chandrapal also reached the spot to save her, but in the Court

statement Chandrapal (PW-7), denied the whole prosecution case and

161 statement (Ex.P/12) produced by the prosecution. In his cross-

examination, he specifically denied that accused entered the house

and caught hold of his sister-in-law. Another witness, elder sister of

the prosecutrix Priti (PW-3) narrated that accused after taking liquor

molested her sister, but the prosecutrix (PW-4) in para 13 of his cross-

examination has specifically admitted that at the time of incident her

sister was not present at the spot.

Other Witnesses Bhanu Sharma (PW-1) and Amarjeet (PW-2),

who as per the FIR reached the spot, also did not support the

prosecution case and were declared hostile.

Heard learned counsel for the State through video conferencing

and perused the record.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the

evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that view

taken by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence

available on record and there is nothing on record to take a different

view than the one taken by the trial Court. Therefore, no interference

is required in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and

the same is hereby affirmed.

Accordingly, this application for leave to appeal fails and is

hereby dismissed.

             (Sheel Nagu)                    (Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
                Judge                                   Judge
ms/-



   MADHU SOODAN
   PRASAD
   2021.08.05
   17:00:34 -07'00'