Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Jittu @ Jeetendra Sen on 2 May, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
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. 13132 of 2022
Between:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION SIMARIYA , DISTRICT PANNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A.S. BAGHEL, DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND
1. JITTU @ JEETENDRA SEN S/O SHANKARDEEN SEN
, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O.
GRAM BARI P.S. SIMARIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJU S/O SARIYA PATEL (KUSHWAHA) , AGED
ABOUT 17 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O GRAM
SIMARIYA POLICE STATION SIMARIYA DISTRICT
PANNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This application coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE DWARKA
DHISH BANSAL passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on the prayer for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the
Cr.P.C.
State has filed this application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment
of acquittal dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge, (Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act) Panna in Special Case No.19/2021 whereby
the respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 302 r/w 34
of IPC and Section 5(Jha)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
By taking this Court to the prosecution story learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
submits that complainant Aadhar Singh made a complaint at P o lic e Station
Signature Not Simariya to the effect that on 19.02.2016 at about 08:00 am when he reached on his
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
field to look after the crop, he saw dead body of a boy lying there and his neck
SWETA SAHU
Date: 2022.05.06
16:31:14 IST
and genital part were cut, thereupon case was registered against unknown person.
Learned Dy. Government Advocate by taking this Court to the evidence on
record and the findings given by the Court below submits that the learned trial
court has not properly examined the oral as well as documentary evidence available
on record and merely on the ground of presumption and conjectures acquitted the
respondents, which being illegal and perverse to the evidence available on record,
the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.
We have heard learned Dy. Government Advocate at length.
The Court below passed a reasoned and detailed judgment and considered
statements of all the prosecution witnesses and vide paragraph 12 of its judgment
found the deceased to be minor i.e. less than 18 years of age, but there being no
eye-witnesses or last seen evidence available on record and that the prosecution
has failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances, the learned court has
acquitted the accused/respondents.
Further, the Court below has in paragraph 13 to 33 of its judgment
discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and found that despite there
being presumption available under section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the
offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC so also under Section 5(Jha) r/w 6 of
POCSO Act is not found to have been committed by the respondents.
T h e Court below, in our opinion, has given a plausible and justifiable
opinion. This is trite 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 proves 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. Thus, interference is declined.
This application seeking grant of leave to appeal is rejected.
(SUJOY PAUL) (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
ss
