Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Akash on 28 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 6054 of 2024
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs AKASH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 28-05-2024
Shri G S Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
The State has filed I.A. No.8022/2024 which is an application under
Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C.for leave to appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment
dated 29.12.2023 in Special Case No.08/2019 by Special Judge, designated
under POCSO, Act, 2012, District Jhabua whereby the respondent No.1 Akash
has been acquitted from the charges under Section 363, 376 DA, 376 (2) (n) of
IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5(l) of Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and respondent No.2 has been acquitted from the charges
under Section 363, 376 DA and 366 of IPC and Section 6 read with Section
5(l) of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and respondent
No.3 Ranu has been acquitted from the charges under Section 363, 376 DA,
376 (2) (n) and 366 of IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5(l) of Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. This application has been filed for permission to leave to appeal on the
ground that the Trial Court has recorded the finding regarding the age of the
victim ignoring the scholar register (Ex.P.10) in which the date of birth of victim
is written as 15.08.2004. Since the victim was child on the date of incident
i.e.19.10.2018, the Trial Court has ignored the involvement of respondent No.2
and 3 in the commission of offence in said sexual assault by the respondent
No.1 against the victim.
We have perused the judgment of the Trial Court and record.
3. The prosecution has examined Mansingh Vakhla (PW-3) regarding the
age of victim and scholar register (Ex.P/10) that mentioned the age of victim as
15.08.2004 but Trial Court relied on the ossification report Ex.D/15 and
concluded that the victim was above 18 years at the time of incident.
4 . The principle to be considered at the time of considering the
application under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C have been dealt with in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarelar AIR 2008 (9) SCC 475, the
relevant para 27 is reproduced as below:-
"We may hasten to clarify that we may not be understood to have laid
down an inviolable rule that no leave should be refused by the appellate
Court against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. We only
state that in such cases, the appellate Court must consider the relevant
material, sworn testimonies of prosecution witnesses and record reasons
why leave sought by the State should not be granted and the order of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court should not be disturbed. Where there
is application of mind by the appellate Court and reasons (may be in
brief) in support of such view are recorded, the order of the Court may
not be said to be illegal or objectionable. At the same time, however, if
arguable points have been raised, if the material on record discloses
deeper scrutiny and re-appreciation, review or reconsideration of
evidence, the appellate Court must grant leave as sought and decide the
appeal on merits."
5. Considered the Section 94 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and looking to the findings of acquittal
recorded by the Trial Court, evidence as available on record and grounds raised
for permission to leave to appeal, arguable points arises and the material on
record discloses the deeper scrutiny and re-appreciation of evidence.
Accordingly, it is a fit case to grant the leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of
the Cr.P.C. against the respondent No.1 Akash, Respondent No.2 Sanni and
Respondent No.3 Ranu. Since the respondent No.1 and 2 are in custody, so
Office is directed to issue Bailable Warrant of Rs.50,000/- against the
respondent No.3 Ranu.
6. The respondent No.3 Ranu is directed to furnish a bail bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with separate solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
appearance before this registry on 14.10.2024 and on subsequent dated as
maybe fixed by this registry.
7. List the matter for final hearing in due course.
C.C as per Rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
