Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ganesh on 20 January, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 20 th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37814 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH P.S. BADWAH DISTRICT
MANDLESHWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
( BY SHRI SUDHANSHU VYAS - PANEL LAWYER)
AND
GANESH S/O NANAKRAM, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
JAYMALPURA, THANA-BADWAH DISTRICT KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MOHIT PANDYA - ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The applicant/State has preferred this application under section 378(3) of
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908(In short Cr.P.C.) for grant of leave to
file appeal against the impugned judgment dated 4.3.2020 passed by Special
Judge (POCSO Act) in special case no. 55/2018 whereby the trial court has
acquitted the respondent/accused for offences under sections 341, 354, 354-D
of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and Sections 7/7 and 11/12 of Prevention
of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (in short POCSO Act).
Brief facts of the case are that minor prosecutrix was studying in class 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 20-01-2023
19:39:49
in government Girls Higher Secondary School Badwah.She was also attending
Gurukripa coaching Classes. The accused/respondent regularly chased her and
teased her. On 11.9.2018 at about 5 pm while prosecutrix was returning to her
home from coaching class, at that time on the way before Sai Mandir,
accused/respondent intercepted her and caught hold her hands and said that he
loves her and wants to marry with her. When prosecutrix cried, then
accused/respondent fled away from the spot. The prosecutrix narrated the
incident to her father Gajaraj and brother Lokesh and lodge FIR at police
station Badwah. Accordingly offence has been registered against
accused/respondent.
The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties,
acquitted the respondent/accused from all charges vide judgment dated
4.3.2020. That judgment is subject matter of challenge in the instant application
filed under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that the trial court has committed
an error in drawing an adverse inference against the complainant. As per scholar
register (Ex.P-5), the date of birth of prosecutrix is 26.7.2001 which was duly
approved by Jaswant Singh Chouhan, Teacher, Government Primary School
Heerapur. Therefore, prosecutrix was minor at the time incident. The
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the statement of
prosecutrix and other witnesses examined by prosecution has been duly
corroborated by FIR, therefore, it is prayed that the application for leave to
appeal be allowed and appeal be registered.
The prosecution has examined prosecutrix/complainant (PW-1), Gajaraj
(PW-2), Teacher Jaswant Singh Chouhan (PW-3) and brother of prosecutrix
Lokesh (PW-4) and Sub Inspector K.S. Dabar (PW-5) and exhibited 7
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 20-01-2023
19:39:49
documents. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the
parties in paras 25 to 28 of the impugned judgment observed that
applicant/State has failed to establish case beyond reasonable doubt against
accused/respondent. Accordingly the trial court has acquitted the
accused/respondent.
Although prosecutrix (PW-1) stated in her statement that accused chased
her whenever she went to school or coaching class and also told that he loves
her and marry with her and on 11.9.2018 accused with an intention to outrage
her modesty caught hold her hands and when she cried the accused/respondent
fled away from the spot. She admits in her cross examination that so many
persons were present at the time of incident on the spot but she did not disclose
the incident to anyone. She also admits that 22 - 25 students were studying with
her but prosecution has not made a single student as a witness of the incident.
Lokesh (PW-4) is brother of prosecutrix but he admits in his cross
examination that her sister never told that she was chased by the accused or
accused outrage her modesty. Accordingly Lokesh (PW-4) does not support
the statement of prosecutrix. Therefore, trial court has rightly held that statement
of prosecutrix was not supported by any cogent witness. Gajaraj (PW-2) also
stated that prior to incident her daughter/prosecutrix has disclosed anything
against the accused regarding the aforesaid offence and accused is his
neighbour and prior to incident they have good relationship with his family.
Gajaraj (PW-2) and Lokesh )PW-4) both are not the eye witnesses.
There is material contradiction and omission in the statement of
prosecutrix (PW-1) in the court statement of prosecutrix and her FIR (Ex.P-1).
Considering the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1), Gajaraj (PW-2) and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 20-01-2023
19:39:49
Lokesh (PW-4) and the finding given by learned trial court, this court is of the
considered view that applicant has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt.
Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Sampat Babso Kale Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in AIR Online 2019 SC 648 held that presumption
of innocence attached to every accused person gets strengthened on acquittal
of accused by the trial court, High court should not lightly interfere with
decision of trial court.
In view of the aforesaid, no illegality or perversity is found in the
impugned judgment. Accordingly no case is made out for grant of leave to
appeal against the impugned judgement dated 4.3.2020 passed by Special
Judge, POCSO Act Badwani in ST No. 55/2018.
With the aforesaid observations, present application filed under section
378(3) of Cr.P.C. by applicant/State is hereby dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
BDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 20-01-2023
19:39:49
