The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Govind
2022 Latest Caselaw 2012 MP

                                      1
            The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                    MCRC No. 19490 of 2020
                         (THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs GOVIND)

Jabalpur, Dated : 14-02-2022
       Shri S.K. Kashyap, Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.

       Shri M.M. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.14510/2020 seeking condonation of delay of 33 days in filing this petition.

In absence of any opposition by the respondent and for the reasons stated in the application, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for

belatedly filing this application.

Accordingly, I.A.No.14510/2020 is allowed and delay in filing this appeal stands condoned.

Also heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal. By taking this Court to the prosecution story and the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-6), learned counsel for the applicant State submits that there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of (PW-6) and her statement is clear and was sufficient to record conviction of the respondent.

Shri M.M. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand

supported the impugned judgment.

We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant State at length and perused the record.

As per prosecution story, on 03.02.2015, the husband of the prosecutrix and her mother-in-law went to Nainpur. The prosecutrix was in the courtyard of her house along with her three children. As per the allegations, respondent entered the courtyard, gave Rs.20 to the children to fetch 'Gutka' from the shop and then forcibly taken the prosecutrix inside the room and committed rape. This was seen by one of the child, after returning to the house.

The Court below disbelieved the story of the prosecution because the incident is said to have taken place at around 3.00 pm. The prosecutrix did not shout or raise alarm. Such conduct of the prosecutrix creates serious doubt about commission of the crime. Medical evidence was also not in support of the

prosecution. There was no internal or external injury found on the person of the prosecutrix. There was variation in her statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her Court statements.

In our opinion, the Court below has appreciated the evidence on the basis of

correct parameters and reached to a plausible conclusion. Nothing is pointed out which may establish that findings are either perverse or based on no evidence.

In this view of the matter, no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal. Accordingly, leave is declined and M.Cr.C. is dismissed.

                                             (SUJOY PAUL)                                        (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
                                                JUDGE                                                    JUDGE

                                        pn




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN
Date: 2022.02.15 11:07:23 IST