The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rahul Sen
2022 Latest Caselaw 11653 MP

                                                                    1
                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                         AT JABALPUR
                                                                BEFORE
                                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                                                   &
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
                                                        ON THE 5th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                               MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56056 of 2021

                                        Between:-
                                        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. S.H.O.
                                        P.S. GRHA JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....PETITIONER
                                        (BY SHRI S.K. KASHAYAP - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

                                        AND

                                        RAHUL SEN S/O GUTHAL SINGH SEN, AGED
                                        ABOUT    26   YEARS, BHEDAGHAT  NEAR
                                        PANCHAYATI ABOUT KHERMAI TEMPLE
                                        BHEDAGHAT DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
                                        PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
                                        (NONE )

                                      T h i s application coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE
                                PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA passed the following:
                                                                     ORDER

Heard on this application filed by the applicant/State under Section 378 (III) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal.

T h e applicant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 02.08.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO, Act 2018), in SC No. 34/2017, whereby the Court below has acquitted the present respondent for

Signature Not Verified the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 376(2)(I), 506(B) of SAN

Digitally signed by DEVESH K IPC and Section 5(L) reads with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.07 17:09:35 IST

The allegation against the applicant is that, the complainant submitted a

written complaint to the Police Station Garha, Jabalpur to the effect that she had a friendship with Rahul Sen for about 2 years and used to talk on mobile. Since then, Rahul used to pressurize her to have a physical relationship with him and when she refused, he starts threatening her that he will kill her father and mother. He said that he has a photo of the complainant and if she refuse to do what is said he will upload the photo in internet. So she started obeying everything. Rahul kept on doing wrong things with her forcibly against her will for two years, several times in different places and hotels, starting from 15.02.2015 to 13.02.2017. Thereafter, she narrated the incident to her parents.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgement passed by

the learned Trial Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law both in facts and in law and is liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court below has erred in not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has given the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused merely on the ground of presumptions and conjectures, passed the impugned judgment, the Court below failed to appreciate that the prosecution story was duly proved by the prosecution witnesses P/1 (prosecutrix). The learned trial Court ought to have seen that that the accused has not produced any evidence in support of his case and simply stated that he is innocent. Therefore, the leave of this Hon'ble Court be granted to raise the other grounds at the time of hearing of the case, in the interest of justice.

We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of Signature Not Verified SAN the opinion that though the FSL and medical report has not supported the case Digitally signed by DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA of prosecution but the dispute regarding age of the prosecutrix has not been Date: 2022.09.07 17:09:35 IST

clarified as to why the Court below has not appreciated the class-10th mark- sheet (Ex-P/6C) and admission application form (Ex-D2/C).

Therefore, looking to the statement of prosecutrix PW/1 and her father PW/2 wherein they have deposed against the respondent and after going through all the documentary evidence available on record, prima facie case is made out, we deem it proper to grant leave to appeal.

Accordingly, leave is granted.

The Registry is directed to convert this M.Cr.C. into Criminal Appeal. Let bailable warrant of arrest in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) be issued against the respondent for a date to be fixed by the Registry for their presence before the Registry.

                                  (SUJOY PAUL)                                     (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
                                     JUDGE                                                  JUDGE
                                DevS




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Date: 2022.09.07 17:09:35 IST