Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mahendra @ Monu Yadav on 29 July, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-19418-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-19418-2020
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs MAHENDRA @ MONU YADAV)
Jabalpur, Dated : 29-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Government Advocate for
applicant.
None for the respondent.
Heard.
The applicant/State has filed this application under Section 378
(III) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for seeking leave to appeal
against judgement dated 22.11.2019 passed by learned Special Judge,
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Anuppur (MP), in Special Case
No.38/2017, whereby learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Anuppur,
acquitted the respondent/ accused under Sections 354 of IPC, Section 7/8
of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section
3(1)(Ba)(i) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
According to the prosecution case in short that on 13.2.2017,
prosecutrix (PW/3) aged 16 years, belongs to Scheduled Tribe (Gond),
was staying and residing at the house of her grand-mother at Village
Goinda, Police Station Kotma, District Anuppur (MP).
Respondent/accused used to talk to her on the way with bad intention.
On 13.2.2017, at 9:00 AM, respondent/accused caught hold the hands of
prosecutrix (PW/3), outraged her modesty and also dragged her near the
shrub. Prosecutrix (PW/3) raised alarm, then respondent/ accused ran
away from the spot. FIR was lodged. After the investigation, charge
sheet has been filed against the respondent/ accused.
Learned trial Court framed the charge against the
respondent/accused under Sections 354 of IPC, Section 7/8 of Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(Ba)(i) of
SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution
examined Rammilan Singh (PW/1), Dr. Mohd. Aujer (PW/2), Prosecutrix
(PW/3), Munni Bai Gond (PW/4), Kapindra Pratap Singh (PW/5), Vijay
Pratap Singh (PW/6) & Maneet Kumar Baiga (PW/7). The statement
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. Respondent/accused did not
produce any defence witness. After appreciating the evidence, learned
Signature Not Verified
trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused under Sections 354 of IPC,
SAN
Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.07.30 17:36:06 IST
2 MCRC-19418-2020
and Section 3(1)(Ba)(i) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State submits that learned trial
Court committed grave error in acquitting respondent/accused under
Sections 354 of IPC, Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(Ba)(i) of SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the
evidence in perspective way. The judgment passed by learned trial
Court is erroneous both on law and facts, so it is liable to be set aside.
He also cited case of State of Karnataka Vs. K. Gopalakrishna (2005)
9 SCC 291, Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 and
State of Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384.
After carefully examination of record and the fact that prosecutrix
(PW/3) is victim in this case, she deposed all the facts in her chief
examination, but in her cross-examination, she did not allege any fact
against the respondent/accused. Munni Bai Gond (PW/4) is grand-
mother of prosecutrix (PW/3), she also did not allege any fact against the
respondent/acused in her cross-examination. Kapindra Pratap Singh
(PW/5) is father of prosecutrix (PW/3), he also did not allege any fact
against the respondent/accused in his cross-examination, no other eye
witness is available on record, learned trial Court has considered the
evidence of each and every eye witness. Thereafter, learned trial Court
refused to accept the evidence of prosecution. This finding is probable
and not perverse. This finding is based on proper appreciation of
evidence, found probable and not perverse.
Learned trial Court appreciated these facts in the judgment in
proper way and thereafter acquitted the respondent/accused from the
alleged charge.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh and others v.
State of Haryana reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 has held as under:
"2 7 . The Court also took note of earlier precedents and
summarised the legal position laid down in those cases, in the
following words: (Govindaraju case, SCC pp.738-39, paras 17,18 &
22) 17. If we analyse the above principle somewhat concisely, it is
obvious that the golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in a case, one pointing to the guilt of
the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is
Signature Not Verified
favourable to the accused should be adopted.
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.07.30 17:36:06 IST
3 MCRC-19418-2020
18. There are no jurisdictional limitations on the power of the
appellate court but it is to be exercised with some circumspection. The
paramount consideration of the court should be to avoid miscarriage
of justice. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal
of guilty is no less than that from the conviction of an innocent. If there
i s miscarriage of justice from the acquittal, the higher court would
examine the matter as a court of fact and appeal while correcting the
errors of law and in appreciation of evidence as well. Then the
appellate court may even proceed to record the judgment of guilt to
meet the ends of justice, if it is really called for.
xx xx xx
22. A very vital distinction which the court has to keep in mind
while dealing with such appeals against the order of acquittal is that
interference by the court is justifiable only when a clear distinction is
kept between perversity in appreciation of evidence and merely the
possibility of another view. It may not be quite appropriate for the
High Court to merely record that the judgment of the trial court was
perverse without specifically dealing with the facets of perversity
relating to the issues of law and/or appreciation of evidence, as
otherwise such observations of the High Court may not be sustainable
in law."
Therefore, from the above discussions and after examining the
evidence available on the record, this Court does not find any illegality
or perversity relating to issue of law and appreciation of evidence by the
trial Court. The learned trial Court has rightly passed the judgment of
acquittal and the finding of learned trial Judge is probably and based on
proper appreciation of evidence. Hence, the leave to appeal is not
granted. Consequently, the present M.Cr.C is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.07.30 17:36:06 IST
