Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bihari Singh on 14 October, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51226
1 CRA-1350-2023
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 14th OF OCTOBER, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1350 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
BIHARI SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for appellant/State.
ORDER
Per: Smt. Justice Anuradha Shukla
Heard on I.A. No.5202/2023, an application for seeking condonation
of 126 days.
2. The application is duly supported with an affidavit and the reason
for delay is well explained, therefore, the delay is hereby condoned.
3. Also heard on I.A. No.1748/2023, an application for grant of leave
to appeal filed under Section 378(3) of CrPC, 1973.
4. The application under consideration has been filed to challenge the
judgment of acquittal dated 17.06.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Rajendragram, District Anuppur in S.T. No.96/2019, whereby the
respondent/accused was acquitted of the charges of Sections 450, 376 and
506-B of IPC.
5. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.07.2019, the night of incident,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51226
2 CRA-1350-2023
the prosecutrix was in her shop alongwith her three year old child; her
husband had gone to another village; the respondent came to her shop for
purchase of 'Bidi' and later forcibly entered the shop and closed the door
from inside; he raped the prosecutrix and left the place after giving threats to
her. As she did not reach the home timely, her parents-in-law came to the
shop to whom she narrated the incident; FIR was made and the matter was
investigated. After the filing of charge-sheet, prosecution examined 13
witnesses during trial and the finding of acquittal was recorded under the
impugned judgment.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant/State has
filed this application for grant of leave to appeal. The grounds raised herein
are that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence available on record and gave erroneous finding both on facts and in
law. The entire prosecution case could not be disbelieved for the reason of
non-disclosure of incident by the prosecutrix to her-in-laws. Even the
mother-in-law has admitted that she found the prosecutrix in tears when they
arrived at the shop. The judgments of Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs.
Gopal Krishna (2005)9 SCC 291, Girija Prasad vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7
SCC 625, State vs. Gurmit Singh (1996)2 SCC 384, Dildar Singh vs. State of
Punjab (2006) 10 SCC 531 have been relied upon by the learned counsel for
the State to emphasize the legal proposition that unreasonable or perverse
finding require interference of appellate Court, which has every power to -
appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence as a whole and delay in
lodging the FIR in a case of sexual molestation should not be a ritualistic
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51226
3 CRA-1350-2023
formula for doubting the prosecution case; the Court must act responsibly
and sensitively in such matters.
7. We have heard and considered the arguments submitted on behalf of
appellant/State and have also gone through the impugned judgment and the
entire record of the trial Court
8. The case in hand discloses commission of rape upon a married
woman, who was the mother of a three years old child on the date of alleged
incident. It is claimed that the matter was informed to her in-laws on the
same night, but FIR was lodged with a delay of 4 days. The statement of
prosecutrix (PW1) reveal that her husband had returned on next day itself,
still the matter was not reported to the police until 31.07.2019. The
prosecutrix was medically examined, but there were no signs of injury on her
person. The prosecutrix (PW1) has not claimed even to have screamed
during the incident. According to her, there was a bed inside the shop where
the crime of rape was committed, but she has admitted that her son was also
sleeping in the shop. The spot map (Ex.P/3) discloses that shop had a door
as well as a window which had its opening to the main road. The trial Court
was of the view that the prosecutrix of the age of 35 years acted more like a
consenting party in this case as she did not offer any vocal or physical
resistance.
9. On the basis of afore-discussed factual matrix, the finding of
acquittal cannot be cast aside as absurd or against the evidence available on
record. No case has been made out here about misreading or ignoring the
relevant evidence. Indeed the appellate Court can re-appreciate and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51226
4 CRA-1350-2023
reconsider the evidence, but there are defined limitations while interfering in
an order against acquittal. It has been aptly held in State of Karnataka vs.
Suvarnamma and another 2015 (1) SCC 323 that "in an appeal against
acquittal, if a possible view has been taken, no interference is required, but if
the view taken is not legally sustainable, the Court has ample power to
interfere with the order of acquittal."
10. In the light of evidence discussed above, the reasons assigned in
the impugned judgment and considering the case in its entirety, we are of the
opinion that no case is made out to interfere in the impugned judgment.
Hence, in view of facts and legal matrix discussed above, we dismiss the
application for grant of leave to prefer appeal against the impugned judgment
of acquittal.
11. Consequently, the I.A. No.1748/2023 stands dismissed and also
this appeal.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
rv
