Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devkaran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3182
1 CRA-4759-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4759 of 2024
DEVKARAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mayank Mishra, counsel for appellant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, G.A. for State.
None for respondent No.2 though notice is served as per report dated
18.12.2024.
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed under section 14-A of Scheduled Caste
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, being aggrieved by the order
dated 12/10/2022, passed by the Court of Special Judge (Under Atrocities
Act), District Dhar in Special Case No.16/2022 pending in connection with
Crime No.405/2021, registered against the appellant at P.S.Sagour, District-
Dhar, whereby the learned trial Court has framed the Charge under Section
376-D, 365 of Indian Penal code and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act)
against the present appellant.
2. As per the prosecution story, while the prosecutrix was on her way
to Mamta's house, Mamta's husband Arjun and his friend Kapil arrived on a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3182
2 CRA-4759-2024
motorcycle and told her to sit on the bike. When she refused, Mamta and
Arjun forced her to sit on Arjun's bike and drove her to a house, where Arjun
used to keep her locked up and rape her. It was further alleged that Arjun
also used to rape her in front of Mamta. Thereafter, on 18/11/2021, Arjun
came to know that her missing report had been lodged at the police station,
upon which he brought her to the police station, and due to his fear, she gave
false statement at the police station that she had gone with Arjun on her own
will and that she had married Arjun and wanted to go with Arjun. She went
back with Arjun, and on 19.11.2021, Arjun left her at Sagaur Kuti at around
11:00 am, from where she went to her home and narrated the incident to her
family. On the basis of aforesaid set of allegations, the P.S. registered a
criminal case bearing Crime No.405/2021 under Section 376, 376(2)(n), 376-
D, 365, 342, 323, 506 of the L.P.C. and Section 3(2) (va), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the
Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
against the accused persons namely Arjun, Mamta and Kapil.
3. During the course of the investigation, the statements of the
prosecutrix were recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein
she stated that the present appellant Devkaran and co-appellant Mahesh had
informed Arjun about the missing report of the prosecutrix and thereafter it
has been alleged that she was taken to police station. On the basis of the
aforesaid allegations made by the prosecutrix, the present appellant was also
implicated in the present crime.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no
allegation against the appellant in the FIR and even in the statement of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3182
3 CRA-4759-2024
prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. The only allegation
against the appellant is that he had informed the co-accused Arjun that
missing report of the person has been lodged against him and he
accompanied the co-accused Arjun to police station.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/state supports the order.
However, could not point out any other material except the statement of
prosecutrix under section 164 of Cr.P.C, which does not contain any
allegation against the appellant.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. the only
allegation against the appellant is that he informed the co-accused Arjun that
missing report of the prosecutrix has been lodged and thereafter he
accompanied the co-accused Arjun to police station. Prima facie the
aforesaid allegation does not constitute the ingredients of offence alleged
against him. From perusal of the FIR and from the statement of the
prosecutrix, it is evident that prima facie there is no allegation against the
appellant regarding kidnapping and rape. The case of appellant is similar to
the case of co-accused Mahesh Choudhary whose charges have been set
aside in Cr.Revision No. 12113/2023 by order dated 22.1.2024. So far as the
charges with regard to offence under SC & ST Act are concerned, this Court
finds that there is no allegation against the appellant that offence was
committed becuase the prosecutrix was belonging to SC & ST category.
7. Thus, the aforesaid allegations are examined on their face value
without considering the defense of appellant but no ingredients of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3182
4 CRA-4759-2024
offnece have been found. Thus, the impugned order of framing of charge in
the aforesaid offence so far present appellant is concerned is set aside. The
appellant is discharged from the charge.
The appeal is allowed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
