Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omkaar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 December, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 14 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2735 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
OMKAAR S/O SURESH SAHU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SALAIYA P.S. BEGUMGANJ DISTT. RAISEN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
ARAKSHI KENDRA, BEGUMGANJ, DISTT. RAISEN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VINAY SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-Omkar, S/o Suresh Sahu
under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved of
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19/09/2014 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, Distt. Raisen in Special
Sessions Trial No.42/2013 convicting the appellant under Section 354 of IPC
and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year along with fine of Rs.1,000/- in
default of payment of fine, further RI for two months.
2. This criminal appeal is filed on the ground that conviction and sentence is
based on conjecture and surmises as there is no independent evidence. It is
evident from the evidence of prosecutrix that she admitted document Ex. D/1
and D/2 which are joint photographs of the accused and prosecutrix. Though
she denied the letters Ex.D/3 to D/7 in her testimony, but, mere denial is not
sufficient. It is evident that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt.
3. Shri Vinay Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, supports the impugned
judgment.
4. Place of the incident is shown as field where prosecutrix had gone to
answer call of nature. In para-20 of her cross-examination, she has
categorically stated that it is wrong to say that in that field accused-Omkar had
come. She further deposed that she goes to the same place to answer call of
the nature every day. She further admits that it is correct to say that accused-
Omkar never came to the field where she had gone to answer call of the nature.
No I.O. has been examined in the case to prove the spot map and the place of
occurrence. Spot map was prepared by one P.S. Kori, A.S.I. as is available
on record Ex.P/3. This was required to be proved through any independent
witness.
5. Prosecution led evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1), her father namely
Purushottam (PW-2) and her uncle namely Balbir Singh (PW-3) and evident of
no other independent witness was led. Thus, looking to the fact that there is no
independent witness and even spot map has not been proved by the
prosecution, conviction of the appellant, on the basis of surmises and
conjecture, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned trial Court has
failed to appreciate the fact that in a criminal case charge needs to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, charge could not be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. In para-20 of cross-examination, prosecutrix
admitted that accused never visited the place of incident, therefore, conviction,
on the basis of surmises and conjecture, being not maintainable in the eyes of
law, is hereby set aside.
6. In above terms, this criminal appeal is allowed and disposed of.
7. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
