The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Salman Khan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5620 MP

                                                          1
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                                 SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                                            &
                                           SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                 ON THE 19th OF APRIL, 2022

                                       MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50447 of 2020

                              Between:-
                               STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROGH. P.S.
                              MUNDI DISTT. KHANDWA, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                              (BY SHRI A.S.BAGHEL, DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                              AND

                              SALMAN KHAN S/O HAKEEM KHAN , AGED
                              ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT MENTION
                              VILLAGE JALKUA P.S. MUNDI, DISTT. KHANDWA,
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                              (NONE)

                            This application coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE DWARKA
                      DHISH BANSAL passed the following:
                                                           ORDER

Heard on the application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.9.2020 passed by the special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences), Khandwa in Special Case No.02/2020.

Vide order dated 31.3.2022 learned Government Advocate was granted time to apprise this Court whether accused person and the prosecutrix have solemnized the marriage. In reply learned Government Advocate has informed to this Court that the marriage of the prosecutrix has been solemnized with the accused on 2.11.2020 and a certificate in that regard has also been issued under Special Marriage Act 1954. Copy of marriage certificate as well as the statements of accused and the prosecutrix have also been placed on record along with the report

Signature Not dated 17.4.2022 of Station House Officer, P. S. Moondi, District Khandwa. The SAN Verified

Digitally signed by same is taken on record.

KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2022.04.23 10:13:01 IST

Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State by taking this Court to the evidence on record and the findings given by the Court below submits that on the date of the incident prosecutrix was minor and she was recovered from possession of the respondent/accused, therefore, theory of consent cannot be

accepted. He further submits that the prosecutrix appeared before the Doctor for examination after taking bath therefore, FSL report had lost its significance. Learned Government Advocate placing reliance upon the statements of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) and her mother (P.W.2) argued that learned Court below erred in acquitting the accused-respondent.

We have heard him at length and perused the record.

Learned Court below passed a reasoned and detailed judgment after considering the statement of the prosecution witnesses. Learned Court below gave a specific finding that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused without consent of prosecutrix abducted her and committed rape. Court below in para 47 of its judgment further relied upon the statement of prosecutrix (P.W.1) and on the basis of her admission has come to conclusion that accused has not committed rape on the prosecutrix. Placing reliance on the judgment of Sagar Deenanath Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018 Cr.L.J. 4271 learned Court below has held that presumption provided under Section 29 of the Act is also rebutted and learned Court opined that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

T h e Court below, in our opinion, has given a plausible and justifiable opinion. It is trite law that in a criminal case, burden to prove the charge to the hilt is on the shoulder of the prosecution. Unless the prosecution discharges the said burden and prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, it is not safe to hold an accused as guilty. As noticed above, the Court below has considered all the relevant factors and passed a detailed judgment, which is neither shown to be perverse nor contrary to the record and also in view of the fact that the marriage of the prosecutrix has been solemnized with the accused on 2.11.2020, interference is declined. This petition seeking grant of leave is rejected.

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