The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sanjay
2023 Latest Caselaw 1703 MP

                                                             1
                            IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                         BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                ON THE 31 st OF JANUARY, 2023
                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38044 of 2020

                           BETWEEN:-
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH P.S. RINGNOD DISTRICT RATLAM
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPLICANT
                           ( BY SHRI SUDHANSHU VYAS - PANEL LAWYER)

                           AND
                           1.    SANJAY S/O NATHULAL, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM-PIPLOUDI,
                                 THANA-RINGNOD, DISTT.-RATLAM (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    PRAKASH S/O NAGURAM, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST PIPLOUDI THANA
                                 RINGNOD DIST. RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS


                                 This application coming on for admission      this day, the court passed

                           the following:
                                                              ORDER

The applicant/State has preferred this application under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18.2.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) in special case No. 20027/2016 whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted from the charges under section 354A, 354D(1) of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and Section 7/8 of Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012(in short POCSO Act). Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 03-02-2023 18:50:34

Briefly stated facts of the case are that prosecutrix aged about 16 years was a student, often, when she went to school then respondents/accused Sanjay and Prakash chased her. On 2.11.2016 at about 2 pm while the prosecutrix was in his agricultural field alongwith her sister Manju, at that time both the accused persons came there and caught hold her hands with an intention to outrage her modesty and they also threatened her that if she discloses the incident to her father, they will kill them. The incident was witnessed by her sister Manju. The prosecutrix and her sister Manju returned to their home and narrated the whole incident to their parents. Thereafter she lodged FIR at police station Ringnod District Ratlam.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the trial court and trial after scrutinizing the evidence available on record, acquitted both the respondents/accused from the aforesaid charges.

Learned counsel for applicant contended that learned trial court has erred in law and facts by not appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective. It is submitted that the trial court has erred in not considering the statement of prosecutrix and her sister Manju. Their statement were duly supported by other witnesses Suresh (PW-3), Incharge Principal Jagdish Chandra (PW-4). The prosecution has duly proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, it is prayed that present application be allowed and appeal may be ordered to be registered.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and perused the impugned judgment as also the record.

The prosecution has examined prosecutrix (PW-1), eye witness Manju (PW-2), her father Suresh (PW-3), Incharge Principal Jagdish Chandra (PW-4),

Signature Not Verified Head Constable Nilima Prabha (PW-6), Amit Singh Kushwaha (PW-7). The Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 03-02-2023 18:50:34

trial court after considering the evidence by the parties in paragraphs 23 to 34 of the impugned judgment observed that prosecution has failed to establish that accused persons/respondents with an intention to outrage the modesty of prosecutrix used criminal force upon her and it is also not proved that prior to incident accused persons chased the prosecutrix. Accordingly the trial court has acquitted the respondents/accused persons.

From perusal of the record of the trial court, it appears that prosecutrix (PW-1) stated that at the time of incident both the accused persons came on the spot and caught hold her hands but the eye witness Manju have also deposed in the same manner, father of prosecutrix Suresh (PW-3) also corroborated the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) but except prosecutrix all these witnesses did not disclose anything about intention of accused persons. they did not state anything regarding outrage the modesty of prosecutrix by accused persons, therefore, this necessary ingredient for offence under section 354A and 354D(1) of IPC is not made out in the instant case.

It is also noteworthy that prosecutrix (PW-1) categorically admitted in her cross-examination that there was a dispute between accused persons and her family members regarding draining of water and 2-3 times quarrel taken place between them prior to incident also. Suresh (PW-3) also admitted that there was a quarrel with accused Prakash regarding draining of the water and he has

lodged a report against him. In view of the above possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.

The 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 03-02-2023 18:50:34

on acquittal of accused by the trial court, High court should not lightly interfere with decision of the 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 judgment dated 18.2.2020 passed by Special Judge Ratlam in Special ST No. 200207/2016, With the aforesaid observation, present application filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. filed 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: 03-02-2023 18:50:34