Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ravi @ Ravindra Rajput on 22 September, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 22nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37918 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH D.S.P (A.J.K.),
DISTT.-UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, GOVT. ADVOCATE )
AND
RAVI @ RAVINDRA RAJPUT S/O
SURENDRASINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 24
Y E A R S , GRAM-UNTWAS, THANA-INGORIYA,
TEHSIL-BADNAGAR, DISTT.-UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR RESPONDENT)
This application coming on for order this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard.
This petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioner/State
u/S 378(3) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 26.02.2020
pronounced by the Special Judge, Distt. Ujjain in S.T. 143/2017 whereby the
respondent has been acquitted from the charges framed u/ 452 and 354-D of
IPC and Sec 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
Sec 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 21.08.2017, at about 14:00
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 9/23/2022
10:42:31 AM
hours, respondent entered into the house of prosecutrix aged about 17 years
and knowing the fact that she is member of SC/ST Community, with an intent
to outrage her modesty, caught hold of her hand. After hearing the screams of
prosecutrix, her brother, sister-in-law and neighbour came there whereafter,
respondent fled from the spot. On the same day, prosecutrix went to the police
station Ingoria, Distt. Ujjain and made complaint against the respondent and at
about 17:00 p.m. FIR (Ex. P-2) was lodged against the respondent for the
offences punishable u/S 452, 354 of IPC, Section 7/8 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act and Sec 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST(PA) Act. Spot
map(Ex. P-3) was prepared on the instance of prosecutrix. Prosecutrix's caste
certificate (Ex. P-1) and marksheet of IV standard (Ex. P-4) were seized .
Respondent was thereafter arrested vide (Ex. P-5). After completion of
investigation, chargsheet was filed before the Court of Special Judge,SC/ST,
Ujjain..
3. Learned trial Court framed charges against the respondent who
abjured his guilt and pleaded his false implication in the matter and trial Court
while passing impugned judgment of acquittal discussed the evidence available
on record, arrived at a conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove this fact
beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident, respondent with an intent
to outrage her modesty caught hold of her hand.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, State has
preferred this petition u/S 378(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal on the
ground that findings recorded by the trial Court to acquit the respondent are
illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, as material evidence adduced by the
prosecution has not been properly appreciated.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submits that prosecutrix
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 9/23/2022
10:42:31 AM
(PW-1) is a minor girl of SC/ST community. She specifically deposed that on
the date of incident at about 14:00 hours, applicant entered her house and with
an intent to outrage her modesty, caught hold of her hand.There is nothing on
record which makes her statement doubtful. Statement of the prosecutrix's
brother (PW-2), neighbour(PW-3) and FIR (Ex. P-2)lodged just after the
incident also supports the prosecution case. . Even then, learned trial Court has
acquitted the respondent. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/State at length and perused
the record.
7. Prosecutrix (PW-1) although deposed that she was minor at the time
of incident, but nothing else except her Class IV marksheet (Ex. P-4) has been
produced on record. No such document has been brought on record to show
that on what basis her date of birth was mentioned as 15.08.2002 in the
aforesaid marksheet. Prosecutrix also denied any relationship with the
respondent. However, her brother (PW-2) in para 4-6 of his cross-examination
admitted her sister's relationship with the respondent. He specifically deposed
that he has seen the respondent together with his sister and he dislikes their
relationship. He in para 4 of his cross-examination admitted the photograph (Ex.
P-1) wherein respondent and prosecutrix were shown together closely.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, without any corroborative evidence
on record as regards age of the prosecutrix, it cannot be said that learned trial
Court has committed any error in holding that the prosecution has failed to
prove the fact beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident,
respondent with an intent to outrage the modesty of prosecutrix caught hold of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 9/23/2022
10:42:31 AM
her hand.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion, that learned trial Court has rightly recorded the findings to acquit the
respondent from the charges framed against him u/Ss 452 and 354-D of IPC
and Sec 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sec
3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. There is no
perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court.
10. Accordingly, the petition filed u/S 378(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave
to appeal is hereby rejected.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 9/23/2022
10:42:31 AM
