The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ravindra
2021 Latest Caselaw 3946 MP

                                    1                           MCRC-31594-2021
          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                    MCRC-31594-2021
                (THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs RAVINDRA AND OTHERS)


Gwalior, Dated : 04-08-2021
         Heard through Video Conferencing.

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

O RDER

Per Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J:-

The applicant State has filed this application u/S. 378(3) of CrPC for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 06/02/2021 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No.73/2018 whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 366, 344, 376(D) of IPC.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that the father of the prosecutrix (PW2) lodged a Gum Inshan report on 12/12/2017 at Police Station Dinara, District Shivpuri to the effect that his daughter aged about 20 years at the time of

incident is missing since 10:00 in the night. On his report, Merg No.17 of 2017 was recorded and the matter was enquired. During enquiry, on 03/01/2018 the prosecutrix was recovered and handed over to her father on Supurdignama. The statement of prosecutrix was recorded u/S. 161 of CrPC. In her statement recorded u/S. 161 of CrPC, the prosecutrix stated that on the date of incident i.e. 12/12/2017 between 10:00-11:00 in the night she had gone to attend the call of nature. At that time, all the accused persons, Ravindra Yadav, Umacharan Yadav, Sanjeev Yadav, Balram Yadav and Rahish Yadav came and forcibly took her away on the motorcycles. After passing through some distance, she saw one four-wheeler standing there in which all the accused persons were alleged to have taken her away. On the way, they let her to drink. After drinking water, she became unconscious. In the next morning, when she became conscious, she knew that she is in a 2 MCRC-31594-2021 room. All the five accused persons told her that if she disclosed anybody on telephone, then they will kill her. Accused Ravindra Yadav, who had resided with her in the room, on the false pretext of marriage, used to sexually exploit her. On one day night, four accused persons Umacharan, Sanjeev, Balram and Rahish committed ''Bura Kam'' (sexual intercourse) with her and

thereafter, they went away. On another day, when accused Ravindra had gone away for taking food, she talked with her family members on telephone saying that she is detained in a room by accused persons Sanjeev Yadav, Balram Yadav, Umacharan Yadav, Rahish Yadav and Ravindra Yadav. Thereafter, her father reached Indore and when she asked where he is staying, on that her father said that it is Indore. Thereafter, she along with her father came to the Police Station. After recording her statement by Police, Crime No.06/2018 for offence under Sections 366, 376-D, 506, 34 of IPC was registered and she was sent for medical examination. All the accused persons were arrested. Statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded.

After due completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. After conclusion of trial and after recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, by the impugned judgment, the accused persons have been acquitted by the Trial Court from the charges as mentioned above. Aggrieved by which, the State has filed this application for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.

In the statement of prosecutrix (PW1) aged about 20 years recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, she specifically stated that in between 10:00- 11:00 pm, when she had gone to attend the call of nature, at that time, accused persons Balram Yadav, Umacharan Yadav, Ravindra, Sanjeev and Rahish came there and they took her away on their motorcycles. After passing through some distance, she saw one four-wheeler standing there in which all the accused persons were alleged to have taken her away. On the way, they let her to drink. After drinking water, she became unconscious. In the next morning, when she became conscious, she knew that she is in a 3 MCRC-31594-2021 room. All the accused persons threatened her and said that if you tired to escape anywhere, they will kill her. Thereafter, three accused persons went away and only accused Ravindra had remained with her. Accused Ravindra committed ''Bura Kam'' (sexual intercourse) with her. After some days, accused Sanjeev Yadav, Balram Yadav and Umacharan Yadav also came there and committed ''Bura Kam'' wih her. One day, when accused Ravindra had gone outside for taking food, she telephoned her father on which her father, on the next day, came there and she narrated the incident to him. At the time of reaching the place of incident, accused Ravindra had already left the place. When she asked to her father about the place, then her father told that it is Indore. On the next day, she along with her father and brother

reached Police Station and lodged the report.

In the examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix (PW1) has specifically denied that although accused Rahish had participated in the incident but he had not committed any offence of rape with her and remaining four accused persons had committed rape with her. The evidence of prosecutrix (PW1) is supported by the evidence of her father Shivraj (PW2), mother Hemlata (PW3) & brother Jasu @ Jaswant (PW4) as well as by missing report recorded at Police Station Dinara, District Shivpuri.

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

Looking to the evidence available on record, it is evident that prima facie, offence is made out against all the accused persons except accused Rahish. The learned Trial Court has committed a material illegality in acquitting the respondents herein from the charges levelled against them.The finding given by Trial Court appears to be perverse. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal.

Accordingly, State is granted leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 06/02/2021 as regards respondent No.1 Ravindra, 4 MCRC-31594-2021 respondent No.2 Sanjeev, respondent No.3 Umacharan & respondent No.5 Balram, except accused Raheesh (respondent No.4 herein).

Registry is directed to register this case as regular Criminal Appeal respondent No.1 Ravindra, respondent No.2 Sanjeev, respondent No.3 Umacharan & respondent No.5 Balram and thereafter, list the matter for admission.

Accordingly, this MCRC stands disposed of.

  (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=f592da990684fe30f8e1e29a4a1a9e3451 ee450d883083a8e4cc8020eee6f7cb, cn=MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2021.08.10 10:50:37 +05'30'