Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dilawar Singh on 6 December, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34193 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION GAUTAMPURA, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY MS. VARSHA SINGH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DILAWAR SINGH S/O JALAMSINGH, AGED ABOUT
47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
GRAM NAULANA TEHSIL DEPALPUR, THANA
GAUTAMPURA, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. BHAGWANSINGH S/O PARVAT SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
WORK R/O GRAM JALINIYAR, TEHSIL PIPLODA
THANA KALUKHEDA, DISTRICT RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KALYANSINGH S/O BADRILAL, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE WORK R/O
GRAM PACHODA TEHSIL DEPALPUR, THANA
GAUTAMPURA DIST INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. JARESINGH S/O RATANSINGH, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE WORK R/O
GRAM BANNAKHEDA, TEHSIL JAORA THANA
GAUTAMPURA, DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RITU RAJ BHATNAGAR - ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Signing time: 07-Dec-23
6:47:52 PM
2
This application coming on for orders this day, Justice Anil Verma
passed the following:
ORDER
1. Heard on IA No.18135 of 2023, which is an application for keeping the
respondent Rahul as a necessary party in the appeal memo.
2. This Court vide order dated 1.9.2023 held that respondent No.1 Rahul
has been wrongly added as party, as he has been sentenced for Life
Imprisonment, for which he has filed Criminal Appeal No.3865/2022 for setting
aside the same. This court has no jurisdiction to review its own order in criminal
matters. Therefore, IA No.18135 of 2023 is dismissed.
3. Also heard on IA No.10033 of 2022, which is an application for
condonation of delay in filing the application.
4. Delay of 15 days in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal
has properly been explained by the applicant and the application is well
supported by the affidavit of the OIC.
5. On due consideration, IA No.10033 of 2022 is allowed and the delay
of 15 days in filing the application is hereby condoned.
6. Heard finally with consent.
7. Applicant has preferred this application under Section 378(3) of
Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14.3.2022,
whereby the accused/respondents Bhagwan Singh and Jare Singh have been
acquitted from the charges under Section 368 of IPC and accused/respondents
Dilawar Singh and Kalyan Singh have been acquitted from the charges under
Section 368, 506 Part-II, 190 of IPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act.
8. The briefly stated facts of the case are that grand-father of the
prosecutrix/complainant Shankarlal lodged an FIR at P.S. Gautampura, Indore
by stating that his minor grand-daughter/prosecutrix did not return from the
school and he has doubted that accused Rahul abducted his minor grand-
daughter. Accordingly missing person report and offence under Section 363 of
IPC has been registered against the accused Rahul. During the investigation
prosecutrix was recovered from village Dangwada and on the basis of the
statement of the prosecutrix, it has been gathered that accused Rahul abducted
the prosecutrix and took her with him to different places and committed rape
upon her. It is also gathered that respondents/accused Bhagwan Singh and Jare
Singh wrongfully concealed or kept in confinement and kidnapped the
prosecutrix with the same intention or knowledge. It has been also found that
respondents/accused Dilawar Singh and Kalyan Singh wrongfully concealed or
kept the minor kidnapped prosecutrix in their confinement with the same
intention and knowledge and threatened her for life by knowing that she belongs
to the scheduled caste community.
9. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed and
case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Indore, which has been later on
transferred to the 15th ASJ, Indore. The trial court after completion of the
evidence of both the parties, by the impugned judgment acquitted the
respondents from the aforesaid charges. Being aggrieved by the impugned
judgment of acquittal, applicant/State has preferred this application for leave to
appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is ample
evidence available on record to create direct nexus of the respondents with the
aforesaid offence. However, the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of
prosecutrix (PW-1), her mother (PW-2) and maternal grand-father Shankarlal
(PW-3) in proper manner and taken too technical view in considering the facts
available on record. Therefore, trial Court has committed an error in acquitted
the respondents from the aforesaid charges. Hence, it is prayed that the
impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the respondents be convicted
for the aforesaid offence.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents/accused opposes the prayer and
prays for its rejection by submitting that the trial court by the impugned
judgment has properly appreciated the evidence available on record and on the
basis of the evidence, rightly acquitted the respondents. Therefore, there is no
scope for any interference in the impugned judgment.
12. Both the parties heard at length and perused the judgment and the
entire record.
13. Prosecution has examined prosecutrix (PW-1). She has categorically
stated only against the accused Rahul that accused Rahul abducted her and
threatened for life and he forcefully took her to Betma, then Indore, Ujjain,
Kota, Jaipur and Ajmer and took her in a hut situated in a field of an unknown
person, kept her for a period of 14 days and committed repeatedly rape upon
her. Then accused Rahul took her to village Baseli and kept her in a rented
house owned by Seema Kanvar. After 8-10 days respondents Dilawar Singh,
Bhagwan Singh, Jare Singh and Kalyan Singh reached there and threatened her
that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, they will kill her. Then they kept her
in Bhagwan Singh's home for a period of 4-5 days. Accused Rahul gave her
some tablets for abortion. Bhagwan Singh, Pooja and Surpalsingh also told her
to consume the tablet. The allegation levelled against the respondents is that
they wrongfully concealed or kept in confinement the minor prosecutrix, who
has been kidnapped but from the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) nothing
has been revealed that the respondents have given any shelter to the accused
Rahul and the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix (PW-1) did not state anything regarding
wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement by the respondents. As per the
statement of the prosecutrix, accused Rahul took her to Betma, Indore, Jaipur,
Ajmer and village Baseli, but the respondents are resident of village Naulana,
village Jaliniyar, village Pachhoda and village Bannakheda situated in District
Indore and Ratlam. Therefore, on the basis of the statement of prosecutrix
(PW-1), prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondents
regarding the aforesaid charges.
14. It is settled principle of law that if the trial Court, on due appreciation
of evidence came to the conclusion about the findings of acquittal, then
normally, if the findings is not perverse, then it should not be interfered with by
the appellate Court. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Chandrappa and others Vs.
State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, wherein, Hon'ble Apex
Court has laid down legal principles for entertaining appeal against acquittal,
which reads as under :
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following
general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing
with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and
reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate
Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling
reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances',
'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to
curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against
acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of
language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere
with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the
evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly,
the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding
of acquittal recorded by the trial court".
15. In view of the above re-appreciation of evidence on the basis of the
legal principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and after considering the
entire evidence and the finding given by the trial Court in the impugned
judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of acquittal
recorded by the trial Court does not appear to be perverse or illegal, which can
be interfered by this Court. Resultantly, no ground is available to interfere in the
impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. Therefore, we are not inclined to
allow the application.
16. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
trilok
