Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shahrukh Sheik on 21 March, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 21st OF MARCH, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8349 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION
SARDARPUR, DISTRICT DHAR (MP)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PANEL LAWYER)
AND
SHAHRUKH SHEIKH SON OF NAWAB
SHEIKH, AGED 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION
BUSINESS, R/O SANJAY COLONY, RAJGADH,
TEHSIL SARDARPUR, DISTRICT DHAR (MP)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI M.I. ANSARI -ADVOCATE)
........................................................................................................
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Both the parties heard on admission.
1/ The appellant/State has preferred this appeal under section 378(3) of
Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated
13.12.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) Sardarpur District Dhar
in special sessions trial No. 23/2019 whereby the respondent/accused has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 23-03-2023
16:10:41
been acquitted for the offences under section 354(D)(1), 326(B) of IPC
and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.
2/ Brief facts of the case are that on 16.11.2015, prosecutrix (PW-1)
lodged an FIR at police station Sardarpur by stating that since last one
month accused Shahrukh chased her and told him that why you are not
talking to me, when she denied to talk with him, then accused threatened
him that if she will not talk with him he will throw acid upon her any day.
On 15.11.2015, when the prosecutrix was returning with his sister Rekha,
towards her home near the government hospital, Shahrukh thrown acid
upon her due to which he sustained burn, she got injuries over her right
arm and behind the neck. Accordingly offence has been registered against
the respondent/accused. During the investigation, MLC of the prosecution
was conducted and alleged acid has been recovered from the possession of
respondent/accused. After due investigation charge sheet has been filed.
3/ Learned trial court after completion of trial and thereafter on due
appreciation of entire evidence available on record acquitted the
respondent/accused from the aforesaid charges. Being aggrieved by the
said order of acquittal, the appellant/State has filed this appeal for grant of
leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.
4/ Heard the learned Government Advocate for appellant/State and
perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 23-03-2023
16:10:41
5/ Learned counsel for appellant submits that the prosecutrix has
proved the fact on the basis of her statement (PW-1) and FSL report (Ex.P-
9) that acid was thrown upon the prosecutrix by respondent/accused and as
per statement of parents of prosecutirx and ossification test, she was minor
at the time of incident. It is submitted that trial court has not properly
appreciated the evidence available on record and wrongly acquitted the
respondent/accused from the aforesaid charges. Hence he prayed for grant
of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.
6/ From perusal of the prosecution witnesses namely prosecutrix (PW-
1) and her father Thakur Singh (PW-4) it appears that they did not
disclose the name of respondent. The prosecution has proved scholar
register (Ex.P-9) although in scholar register the date of birth of
prosecutrix is 20.7.2000, but this is not scholar register of school of class I.
Assistant Teacher Arjun Singh (PW-7) admits in his cross examination that
no certificate of date of birth of prosecution has been attached with the
scholar register and scholar register was not signed and written by him. To
prove the age of prosecutrix, prosecution has examined Dr. S.S. Bhadoriya
(PW-9) who has categorically stated in para 2 of his examination that as
per x-ray report (Ex.P-12) the age of prosecutrix appears to be 18 to 20
years, therefore, it appears that prosecutrix was major at the time of
incident.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 23-03-2023
16:10:41
7/ Dr. Naushad Naqvi (PW-3) categorically stated in paras 7 and 8 of
his statement as under:-
;fn vkgr ds 'kjhj ij ,flM fxjk gksrk rks 'kjhj ij cM+&
s cM+s Nkys
gks tkrs vkSj muls ikuh vkSj [kwu cgus yxrk] vkSj rst nnZ gksrkA ij
vkgr dkss mijksDr fdlh Hkh izdkj dh f'kdk;r ugha FkhA mlds diM+s
Hkh tys gq, ugh ik, x, vkSj uk gh mUgksus viuh fjiksVZ esa vkgr ds
'kjhj ij ,flM dh fdlh pksV dh ckr fy[kh gSA
8/ Dr. S.S. Bhadoriya (PW-9) also admits in his cross examination that
he did not find any burn mark over the body of prosecutrix, if acid falls in
any part of the body, it may cause burn and also cause blister. Therefore, in
view of the statements of both the medical officers it appears that
prosecutrix did not sustain any acid burn injury.
9/ As per seizure memo (Ex.P-6) only 25-30 ml liquid has been
recovered from the possession of accused Shahrukh, but as per the FSL
report (Ex.D-9) 130 ml liquor has been sent for chemical examination. Sub
Inspector Triveni Rajput (PW-8) and Inspector Neeraj Sakhan (PW-12) did
not prove the factum of difference in seized quantity of aforesaid liquid.
Therefore, it appears that FSL report is not related with the liquid which
was seized from seizure memo (Ex.P-9) and trial court has rightly
disbelieved the said evidence.
10/ From perusal of the entire evidence available on record it appears
that there is no evidence available on record in which the aforesaid charges
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 23-03-2023
16:10:41
can be found proved against the respondent that he chased the prosecutrix
to outrage her modesty and thrown acid and due to the acid attack,
prosecutrix sustained grievous injuries.
11/ In view of the aforesaid, the findings of acquittal recorded against
the respondent is based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and does
not appears to be perverse.
12/ Resultantly, this court does not find any ground for grant of leave to
appeal against the judgment of acquittal. Accordingly this appeal filed by
appellant/State under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA)
J U D G E
BDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 23-03-2023
16:10:41
