The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kaleem
2022 Latest Caselaw 6531 MP

                                                         1
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                                SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                                           &
                                          SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                  ON THE 2nd OF MAY, 2022

                                       MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3910 of 2022

                              Between:-
                              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                              P.S.NEPANAGAR    DISTRICT  BURHANPUR
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPLICANT
                              (BY SHRI S.K. KASHYAP, G.A. )

                              AND

                              KALEEM S/O ABBAS KHAN , AGED ABOUT 24
                              YEAR S , OCCUPATION: NIL VILLAGE DUDHIYA
                              P.S.NEPANAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENT


                            T h i s application coming on for grant of leave to appeal this day,
                      JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL passed the following:
                                                          ORDER

Heard.

State has filed the present application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Burhanpur, District-Burhanpur (M.P.) in SCATR No. 03/2019 whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 366, 376(2)(N) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v), Section 3(1) (w) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 Part-2 of IPC.

As per the prosecution story, complainant-father of the prosecutrix lodged a missing report on 02.02.2019 that his daughter aged 21 years is missing since 31.01.2019. On that date, at about 10 AM. she went to Dabhiya Kheda bank to withdraw the money and did not come back till today. On the basis of said Signature SAN Not Verified information, the police registered missing report No. 08/2019 and on 04.02.2019, Digitally signed by KUMARI PALLAVI she was traced by the police and was handed over to her parents. Thereafter, on SINHA Date: 2022.05.06 11:27:12 IST

06.02.2019, prosecutrix lodged a written report in the Police Station-Nepanagar to the effect that after withdrawal of money she was waiting for bus at that time accused-respondent came there and asked her to sit on his motorcycle to leave at her house but after short distance he threatened her by showing knife and took her

to Surat by train where he committed rape upon her on the point of knife. Thereafter, on 04.02.2019, he brought her from Surat to Burhanpur by train and ran away from there and the prosecutrix was recovered by the police from there and was handed over to her parents.

Thereafter, criminal case was registered against the respondent/ accused and during investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, challan was filed. After committal of the case, learned trial Court conducted the trial and considered the evidence produced by the prosecution. Learned trial Court did not find charges proved and consequently acquitted the respondent accused from the aforesaid charges.

Learned Government Advocate for the applicant State has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that the findings of the trial Court are perverse, illegal and contrary to law and material available on record. There is sufficient evidence against the respondent/accused for convicting him under the aforesaid charges.

Learned Government Advocate for the appellant State by placing reliance up o n the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Vs. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 submits that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case. He further placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Gopalakrishna, (2005) 9 SCC 291 and submits that where the findings of the Court below are unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evidence on record or suffers from serious illegality, the Court below will be justified in setting aside the order of acquittal, and submits that according to the judgment passed in the case of Dildar Singh V. State of Punjab, (2006) 10 SCC 531 , delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and same is not generally material. Learned Government

Advocate by placing reliance on the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) submits that she has clearly deposed against the respondent/accused and there is no reason to doubt her testimony.

In view of the aforesaid reason, learned counsel for the State prays for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of accused/ respondent and for his conviction by setting aside the impugned judgment.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. From bare perusal of the statement of prosecurix (PW-1), it is clear that she has visited many places with the accused-respondent and during journey by train

she did not make any complaint to anybody. The learned Court below after taking into consideration entire evidence including the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) has vide para 18 found that the age of prosecutrix was 21 years and she was major and vide para 19-33 considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution and recorded finding in paragraph 36 that although the prosecutrix belonged to the Scheduled Caste but she was not taken by the accused-respondent forcibly or fraudulently but she went with him with her free will and at the time of alleged incident, she did not raise any voice.

I n presence of the aforesaid and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has rightly granted the benefit of doubt in favour of the respondent/accused. Trial Court has also come to the conclusion that the evidence produced by the prosecution is a weak type of evidence to prove the offence, which is not sufficient to convict the accused/respondent. The findings of the trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and same is under right perspective and there is no perversity or illegality in the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court.

Hence, we are not inclined to grant leave to file an appeal against the respondent accused for his conviction under Sections 366, 376(2)(N) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v), Section 3(1) (w) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 Part-2 of IPC.

Accordingly, this application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.

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