The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mukesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 6422 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mukesh on 1 March, 2024

Author: Prem Narayan Singh

Bench: Prem Narayan Singh

                                                          1
                          IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT INDORE
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                              ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2024
                                         CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10621 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                         OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION SHYAMGARH
                         DISTRICT MANDSAUR. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....APPELLANT
                         (SHRI GAURAV RAWAT APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
                         GENERAL.

                         AND
                         1.    MUKESH S/O PURALAL MALVIYA, AGED ABOUT
                               38 YEARS, R/O GRAM GURADIYA PRATAP THANA
                               SUWASARA DISTT.     MANDSAUR    (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         2.    ANIL S/O KAILASH LOHAR, AGED ABOUT 26
                               YE A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR NAI ABADI
                               SUWASRA DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                         (SHRI MAYUR PATIDAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R-
                         1].

                               T h i s appeal coming on hearing this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                         following:
                                                       JUDGEMENT

This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgement dated 11.02.2023 passed by 3rd ASJ, & Special Judge, (POCSO) Act, Mandsaur whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused from the charges under Section 363, 366, 354-D of IPC & under Section 11i)(iv)/13 and 3(1)(W-

i), 3(2-v-a) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act.

2. Counsel for the State has submitted that the statements of the prosecutrix and her parents proved the case of the prosecution. Although, some of the points have not been supported the prosecution story, but this is a fit case for conviction, but the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in acquitting the respondents. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has not considered the material available on record in its right aspect and passed the impugned order without considering the same. Hence, prays for grant of leave to appeal.

3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has opposed the

prayer by submitting that after going through the statements of the witnesses, it cannot be easily ascertained that in cross-examination, they have supported the prosecution case. Even father of the prosecutirx has also not supported the case of the prosecution, hence, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents.

4. Heard on the question of leave to appeal.

5. In view of the rival submissions of the parties, I have gone through the impugned judgment and statements of the witnesses.

6. In para no.8 of the cross-examination, the prosecutrix herself admitted that there was a dispute in the house and she was perturbed. Further, in para no.9, she has stated that first time, she met with respondent Anil in Suvasra only. In para no.14, she has also conceded that it is true to say that accused Mukesh came due to his work and he has never stalked her. Further in last line of para n.17, she has acceded that it is true to say that she has left her house due to anger and dispute between her and her parents. Father of the prosecutrix

Dinesh (PW-2) also conceded in para no.3 that nothing wrong was committed with the prosecutrix.

7. In view of the aforesaid statements of prosecutrix and her father, the contentions of prosecution are not liable to be acknowledged. As per the settled principle when there are two views, the view in favour of accused may be adopted. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, in the wake of aforesaid discussion, the findings of learned trial Court regarding acquittal of respondent does not warrant any interference. Hence, the leave to appeal fled on behalf of State is declined to be admitted. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE amit