Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kanha @ Kanhaiyalal Mehar on 14 October, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51255
1 CRA-1480-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 14 th OF OCTOBER, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1480 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
KANHA @ KANHAIYALAL MEHAR
Appearance:
Shri Amit Pandey - Government Advocate for the appellant/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Heard on I.A. No.1971/2023, application for grant of leave to appeal
under Section 378(III) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.09.2022 passed by the 13th
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, District Bhopal in S.C.
No.361/2021, whereby the respondent has been acquitted for the offence
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506(2) of IPC and Section 5(j-ii)(L)(N)/6 of
the POCSO Act, 2012, this criminal appeal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been filed.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix registered a
complaint at Police Station Barasia on 06.01.2017 to the effect that her
neighborhood namely, Khuman Singh's nephew, Kanha used to come to the
house of the prosecutrix quite often and always tried to outrage the modesty of the
prosecutrix and even threatening her of dire consequences if she tells the incident
to anyone. After a gap of one month, the accused again came to the house of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51255
2 CRA-1480-2023
prosecutrix and committed the offence. As a result, the FIR was lodged. During
investigation, relevant documents were seized from the prosecutrix. The
prosecutrix and the accused were sent for medical examination, spot map was
prepared, the statements of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was
recorded and the statements of other witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were
also recorded. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the
Special Court who took cognizance of the case.
4. The learned trial Court without properly considering the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, has acquitted the respondent/accused.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the present application seeking
leave to appeal has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant, while making reference to the
evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the
evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with.
6. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the impugned judgment is perused.
7. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record came to
the conclusion that the prosecution could not establish the case and has failed to
prove its case. Learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent of the charges on
the ground that there is no DNA report in spite of the fact that the prosecutrix was
pregnant. In absence of such DNA report, no conclusion can be drawn that the
respondent had committed the offence. Moreover, the age of the prosecutrix also
could not be proved and the trial Court treated it to be more than 18 years and that
too a consenting party. Therefore, in such a situation, the trial Court has come to
the correct conclusion. The evidence of witnesses in this regard is having material
contradictions and omissions. Accordingly, the trial Court found that the evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51255
3 CRA-1480-2023
on record was not sufficient to establish the culpability of the respondent.
8. The Court agrees with the findings recorded by the trial Court that
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
9. It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed
unless the conclusion drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found
to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.
10. Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence
on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the
learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.
11. As such, no interference is called for with the order of acquittal in
question.
12. Accordingly, I.A. No.1971/2023 being devoid of merit and substance
stands dismissed. As a result, the instant criminal appeal also stands dismissed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ak
