Madhya Pradesh High Court
Twinkal Gour Urf Rajat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1880 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
TWINKAL GOUR URF RAJAT S/O SHRI JEEVANLAL
GOUR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
NOUKRI RAISALPUR THANA ITARSI ZILA
HOSHANAGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DWARA AARAKSHI
KENDRA SHAHGANJ ZILA SEHORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. PRIYANKA MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed under Section 454 Cr.P.C against the
order dated 21.03.2022 whereby despite acquitting the accused/present
petitioner from offence under Section 354(A) (1) (ii), 354(C) and under Section
506 part-II of IPC and under Section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act of 2012, the
seized mobile has not been ordered to be returned back to appellant.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that despite acquittal from such
offences, the Court has refused to return the case property seized in connection
with the said offence and directed destruction of the case property.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that he was
accused in the case and he has no objection with destruction of other case
property, but his android mobile which was seized by the police authorities and
is part of the case property, should have been returned to him. It is stated that
there is no utility or reason to destroy the said android mobile along with the
other case property, once the present appellant has been acquitted of the
offence.
4. Considered the submission of the appellant.
5. The allegation in the present case was that the present appellant was
having certain objectionable photograph of the prosecurtrix in his android
mobile. This was the substratum of prosecution lodged against the present
appellant. the factum of the said mobile having objectionable photographs of
the prosecutrix has been mentioned in judgement of acquittal, more particularly
in paragraphs 22, 29, 30 and 34 of the judgment of acquittal.
6. The trial Court has acquitted the present appellant on the ground that
it could not be proved that who took those photographs and also that whether
these photographs were made viral could not be proved.
7. Considering the nature of data and manner in which the said android
mobile has come to be seized in connection with crime, I do not find the order
of under appeal in ordering destruction of entire case property including said
mobile to be bad in law in any manner.
8. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. It is directed to the learned trial Court that the said android mobile
shall also be destroyed along with case property.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
Prar
