The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rahul
2021 Latest Caselaw 4295 MP

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

                      M.Cr.C. No.32178/2021
             (The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rahul)
                                                                 -1-
Indore, dated 13/08/2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Ms. Archana Kher, learned counsel for the applicant/State.

      The applicant/State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this
petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 against the judgment
dated 06.02.2021 passed by II-Additional Sessions Judge,
Mahidpur, Ujjain in ST No.162/2019 where by the respondent

/non-applicant has been acquitted of the offence under Section 376, 450 and 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3 (a) r/w Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

02. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.07.2019 at about 6-7 p.m., non-applicant Rahul phoned to prosecutrix and said that he wants to meet her. On refusal of the prosecutrix, at 01 p.m., non- applicant reached the prosecutrix's house situated in village- Barkhedi. At that time, prosecutrix's maternal-grand-father only, aged-85 years, was present in the home. Non-applicant entered the house and shut the door and forcibly committed rape upon the victim. After hearing hue and cry of the prosecutrix, Johar Singh and Sohan Singh came on the spot and then non-applicant fled away from the spot. Non-applicant also threatened the prosecutrix that if she informs the incident to anybody, he will kill her. Prosecutrix lodged a report at police station - Raghva and on the basis of the report, police registered crime against the respondent/non-applicant.

03. The trial court considered the evidence adduced by the learned counsel for both the parties. It has been found that HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

M.Cr.C. No.32178/2021 (The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rahul)

applicant/prosecution has failed to establish that at the time of incident, accused/non-applicant entered the house of the prosecutrix and committed rape upon the minor prosecutrix.

04. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are ample evidence available to create direct nexus of the respondent with the crime, however, trial court has not appreciated the evidence in proper manner and has two technical views for considering facts available on record, therefore, the trial court has committed error in acquitting the respondent from aforesaid charges, hence, she prays for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment.

05. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

06. On due consideration of the statement of prosecutrix PW-1, it reveals that she has categorically stated that the applicant entered into the house and committed rape upon her. Her testimony is well supported by Satyanarayan PW-2. Dr. Mamta Singh Rampure PW3, who examined the prosecutrix, stated that erosion was present on post fernix; abrasion caused by hard and blunt object and slight bleeding was found. Medical evidence has also supported the prosecutrix version. School master, Hari Shankar PW-4 has stated that as per school register Ex.P-5, date-of-birth of the prosecutrix is 04.03.2003.

07. Considering all the evidence available on record, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case in which permission for grant of leave to appeal can be allowed. Accordingly, present petition filed HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

M.Cr.C. No.32178/2021 (The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rahul)

under Section 378 (3) is allowed and permission for grant of leave to appeal is granted, meaning thereby, the matter is directed to be registered as an appeal and consequently, it is admitted for final hearing.

08. Let bailable warrant be issued in the sum of Rs.20,000/- against the respondent/non-applicant. The non-applicant shall furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned district CJM/Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court on 04.10.2021. and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.

With the aforesaid, M.Cr.C. No.32178/2021 is allowed and is, accordingly, disposed of.

         (Sujoy Paul)                                          (Anil Verma)
            Judge                                                Judge



       N.R.
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA KUMAR
RAIPURIA
Date: 2021.08.18 18:44:44
+05'30'