The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shatrughan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3919 MP

                                    1                             MCRC-26637-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MCRC-26637-2021
                    (THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs SHATRUGHAN)


Gwalior, Dated : 03-08-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
applicant/ State.
      No one appears for the respondent.

O r d er

Per Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J:

Applicant/State has preferred this application under Section 378(3) of CrPC for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22/02/2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind in Sessions Trial No.13/2020, by which respondent has been acquitted from the charges u/Ss. 363, 366, 376 of PC and u/S. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [ in short '' POCSO Act''].

Prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 17/11/2013 at about 03:15 pm, the father of the prosecutrix (PW2) had lodged a Gum Inshan report (Ex.P2)

at Police Station Lahar regarding missing of his daughter aged about 15 years and 8 months. On the basis of Gum Inshan report, the mater was eqnuired. After enquiry, it was found that accused (respondent herein) on the false pretext of marriage, has kidnapped the prosecutrix. On the basis of this report, Crime No.280/2013 for offences u/Ss 363, 366 of IPC was registered at Police Station Lahar and matter was investigated. The prosecutrix was recovered on 03/09/2014 and was sent for medical examination. The respondent was arrested on 03/09/20214 and after due investigation, offence u/S 376 and Section 4 of POCSO Act was added and charge sheet was filed against respondent/accused and trial conducted.

After conclusion of trial and after due appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted respondent from the above-mentioned charges. Aggrieved by which, State has filed this 2 MCRC-26637-2021 application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal.

As per the prosecutrix, she knew the accused/respondent because he was living in the same locality. On 15/11/2013, at about 04:00 pm, the prosecutrix went for tuition from where the accused by threatening forcibly took her away to Bhind and thereafter, from Bhind to Mumbai, Delhi, Kerala

and Kela Devi (Rajasthan). During the period of stay at various places, the accused did not commit any wrong act with her. Crime Branch, Gwalior had apprehended them and thereafter, brought them to Gwalior Police Station from where brought them to Lahar Police Station.

At the time of chief-examination by the prosecution, the prosecutrix, in her examination-in-chief, admitted that they were living during the aforesaid period just like husband and wife but denied that accused had committed any wrong act with her. She denied that the accused, on the false pretext of marriage, took her away from the custody of her parents and committed rape. Besides this, it is admitted by the prosecutrix that during such long period, she did not disclose to anybody that the accused had kidnapped her. In last para of her examination-in-chief, prosecutrix has specifically denied that she is telling false about non-commission of rape by accused. Similarly, the father of prosecutrix (PW2) and the step-mother of prosecutrix (PW3) in their examination-in-chief admitted that prosecutrix told them that accused by threatening took her away and committed rape but since the prosecutrix herself has denied the prosecution version, therefore, the evidence of hearsay witnesses (PW2 and PW3) is not reliable and trustworthy, as they have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

Heard learned State Counsel through video conferencing and perused the record.

Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, specifically the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment of acquittal passed by the 3 MCRC-26637-2021 Trial Court is neither perverse nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non- consideration of evidence on record. The view taken by 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 view taken by the Trial Court.

Resultantly, no grounds are available for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal. Hence, this application u/S. 378(3) of CrPC filed on behalf of applicant/State is dismissed.

E-copy/certified copy of this order passed today be sent to the Trial Court along with its record for information.

(SHEEL NAGU) (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE JUDGE

MKB

Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK

MAHENDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh,

KUMAR BARIK 2.5.4.20=f592da990684fe30f8e1e29a4a1a9e345 1ee450d883083a8e4cc8020eee6f7cb, cn=MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2021.08.05 16:13:50 +05'30'