The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Anil
2022 Latest Caselaw 1778 MP

                                    1
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                BEFORE
                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                   &
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
                        ON THE 8th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

               MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30124 of 2020

        Between:-
        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
        P.S. LALBAG DIST. BURHANPUR (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                                  .....PETITIONER
        (By Shri S.K. Malvi, Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State )

        AND

        ANIL S/O GUMANSINGH , AGED ABOUT 25
        YEARS, SAMAR PAT PHALIYA DHULKOT DIST.
        BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENTS


                     (Heard through Video Conferencing)
      This leave to appeal coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE
SUJOY PAUL passed the following:
                                     ORDER

Heard.

This application is directed against the judgment dated 01.02.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Burhanpur in Special Sessions Trial No.04/2019 whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 363, 366(a), 376(2)(i)(n), 376(d) of IPC and Section 5(g)(L) and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

Shri Malvi, submits that as per the findings of the Court below the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age and, therefore, there was no reason for the Court below to disbelieve her statement. Even if medical evidence did not support the prosecution story, the version of the prosecutrix should have been believed. The Court below has committed an error in acquitting the respondent. The reliance is placed on para -10 of the impugned judgment.

We have heard him at length and perused the record.

As per prosecution story, the prosecutrix went missing on 30.12.2018. She was recovered on 03.01.2019. The prosecution has not given any explanation as to where prosecutrix remained in those five days. The Court below recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C has serious discrepancies/contradictions and, therefore, does not

inspire confidence.

The Court below further recorded that the prosecution has failed to establish as to how she travelled between 30.12.2018 to 03.01.2019. The DNA report does not support the prosecution. The medical evidence also does not suggest any rape being committed. Considering the aforesaid, Court below did not believe the story of the prosecution.

In our opinion Court below has taken a plausible view. The onus can be shifted on the defence provided burden is discharged by the prosecution. The statement of the prosecutrix must inspire minimum confidence on the strength of which one can be held guilty.

We are satisfied with the analysis of the Court below and also the reasons assigned. No case is made out for grant of leave. Leave declined.

M.Cr.C. is dismissed.

                                     (SUJOY PAUL)                                   (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
                                        JUDGE                                               JUDGE
                                   Vin**




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by VINOD SHARMA
Date: 2022.02.08 17:36:45 IST