The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rahul Hatkar
2022 Latest Caselaw 5535 MP

                                                          1
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                                 SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                                            &
                                           SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                 ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2022

                                      MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13818 of 2019

                              Between:-
                              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. SHO P.S.
                              KOHEFIZA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPLICANT
                              (BY SHRI A.S. BAGHEL, DEPUTY G.A. FOR THE STATE)

                              AND

                      1.      RAHUL HATKAR S/O ARJUN HATKAR , AGED
                              ABOUT 22 YEARS, HOUSE OF RAMBABU YADAV
                              SAIED NAGAR KOHEFIZA DISTT. BHOPLA
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.      SAJID KHAAN S/O MOHD. AHMED KHAAN , AGED
                              ABOUT 22 YEARS, IN FRONT OF BABE ALI SCHOOL
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS


                            T h is application coming on for hearing this day, Court passed the

                      following:
                                                          ORDER

Heard on application seeking relief under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 14.12.2018 passed in S.T. No. 70/16 to the extent respondent was acquitted by the Court below.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the finding in para 5 & 6 of impugned judgment shows that the prosecutrix was held to be a juvenile by the Court below. She in the FIR in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and in the Court statement categorically mentioned that respondent Rahul sexually assaulted her. However, she did not mention name of Rahul in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In addition, the scientific report shows that DNA profile of co-accused Sajid Khaan matches with the sample and Signature SAN Not Verified not of present respondent Rahul. Criticizing the findings, it is submitted that in Digitally signed by KUMARI PALLAVI view of Section 29 & 30 of POCSO Act, a presumption is there for commission SINHA Date: 2022.04.19 10:59:24 IST

of crime against the respondent Rahul. The Court statement of victim could not have been brushed aside lightly.

We have heard him at length and perused the record.

Prima facie, we find substance in the argument of learned counsel for

the State. Considering the aforesaid, we deem it proper to grant leave.

We order accordingly.

The matter be converted into Criminal Appeal. Registry shall issue bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the respondents for a date to be fixed by the Registry.

Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is disposed of.

   (SUJOY PAUL)                                        (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
      JUDGE                                                   JUDGE
Pallavi