Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sanjay @ Vishnu on 15 May, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 15 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6231 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION SITAMAU
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND
SANJAY @ VISHNU S/O KACHRULAL BAGRI, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, GRAM LADUNA, TEHSIL SITAMAU,
DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANISH ZAROLA, ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.6549/ 2023, an application filed u/s 378(3) of the
Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file appeal.
2. This application has been filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for
grant of leave to file appeal against the judgement dated 28/01/2023 passed by
the Court of IIIrd A.S.J. and Special Judge (POCSO Act 2012), Mandsaur in
S.T. No. 237/2021, whereby learned trial court has acquitted the respondent for
an offence punishable under Section 452, 354 of the I.P.C. and Section 7 r/w 8
of the POCSO Act.
3. Case of the complainant/ applicant in brief is that at the time of the
incident the prosecutrix was around 16 years and 7 months of age. On
20/11/2021 at around 07:00 A.M. the prosecutrix was at her house alongwith her
younger sister. The respondent/ accused entered her house, hugged her and
pressed her breast in furtherance of his bad intention. The prosecutrix raised her
alarm, on which he threatened her that if she tells about the incident to anyone,
he will kill her family members. Thereafter, he fled away from the place of
incident. On 24/11/2021, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, impugned judgment is
against the settled principles of law and procedure. It is also submitted that the
learned trial court has committed error in disbelieving the statement of
prosecutrix while sole statement of prosecutrix is reliable. The learned trial court
has failed to appreciate material evidence available on record and has attributed
wrongful interpretation. The learned trial court has also committed error by
acquitting the respondent. The impugned judgment suffers from patent illegality
and manifest error of law and clinching evidences have been ignored.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the
records.
6. On perusal of records, it appears that the learned trial court has
acquitted the respondent on the ground that the FIR was lodged belatedly by
four days and the explanation given by the prosecution in this respect is not
satisfactory. There are material contradiction and omission in the statement of
the prosecutrix (PW/ 1). One day before the lodging of FIR, a quarrel had taken
place between the complainant party and accused and on the right next day, the
F.I.R. was lodged. Sole statement of prosecutrix (PW/ 1) is not reliable.
Younger sister of the prosecutrix was eye-witness of the incident, but she has
not been examined before the trial court by the prosecution. Therefore, the
prosecution story is doubtful.
7. On perusal of the record of the trial court and also impugned judgment
it appears that the learned trial court has considered the oral as well as
documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case and acquitted the
respondent. It appears that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the
evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as documentary evidence and has
rightly acquitted the respondent/accused. It also appears that the learned trial
court has not committed any error to acquit the respondent therefore, in my
view it is not a fit case to grant leave to file appeal to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, I.A. No.6549/ 2023, an application for leave to file
appeal, is rejected.
9. With the aforesaid, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE
ajit
