Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tarun @ Tushar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15047
1 CRA-4923-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 19th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4923 of 2025
TARUN @ TUSHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri SS Thakur - Govt. Advocate for the respondent(s)/State.
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST POA,
1989 is preferred challenging the order dated 25.04.2025 passed in SC
No.145/2024 by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA), Dhar whereby charge under
Section 49 of the BNSS, 2023 readwith Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989 and Section 127 (2) of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 351(3) of the
BNSS, 2023 readwith Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 have
been framed against the revision petitioner.
2. This criminal appeal is preferred on the ground that there is no
evidence on record to demonstrate that the appellant is having nexus with the
alleged offence directly. In the First Information Report of 14.08.2024 his
complicity was not mentioned by the prosecutrix. The statement recorded
under Section 181 of the BNSS, 2023 on 14.08.2024 the involvement of
petitioner in the offence is not mentioned. On 16.08.2024 prosecutrix
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15047
2 CRA-4923-2025
discloses name of the petitioner unexpectedly in her statement without any
explanation.
3. On 23.08.2024 also she has stated that present petitioner had not
confined the prosecutrix. The FIR has been lodged with a delay and there is
no allegation against the appellant regarding commission of sexual assault.
His presence on the spot does not satisfy the ingredients of abetment. There
is no iota of material to demonstrate that appellant has committed any
offence towards victim. Thereafter, in ground xi) a prayer for enlargement of
bail was made in prayer clause. A prayer for discharge was also made after
setting aside of charge.
4. Perusal of the case diary discloses that a Crime No.593/2025 at
Police Station, Dhamnod, District Dhar was registered on the allegations that
one Ravi co-accused got the signature of victim belonging to Scheduled
Tribe on a paper in the Court premises of Maheshwar (M.P) and took the
victim to his home and confined the victim in a room and threatened her and
thereafter committed penetrative sexual assault for a period of 4-5 days.
When the victim escaped from the clutches of the appellant then she went to
the house of her aunt and intimated to her parents and thereafter, lodged an
FIR on 14.08.2024 at Police Station Dhamnod, District Dhar.
5. The role of the appellant/accused is stated that he abetted the
commission of offence by remaining present at the time of obtaining the
signature on paper and thereafter, extending the threat and also by aiding the
co-accused in the commission of crime of penetrative sexual assault.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15047
3 CRA-4923-2025
appeal and submitted that material collected during the investigation
discloses the involvement of the appellant in the offence. Material collected
satisfy the standard of "grave suspicion" against the present petitioner.
Nothing more is required at the stage of framing the charge, the revision
petition be dismissed.
Perused the case diary.
7. The statement of Jitendra Negi an Advocate practicing in Old Court
Parisar as Notary has stated that the present petitioner had identified the
executant of the affidavit.
8. Father, mother and cousin examined on 23.08.2024 by the
Investigating Officer and the statement of the victim recorded under Section
183 of the BNSS 2023 on 16.08.2024 has disclosed the complicity of this
present appellant. Non-disclosure of present appellant in the statement
recorded on 04.06.2024, 14.08.2024 and in the First Information Report is
explained by the present victim. The material collected satisfy the test of
"grave suspicion" for framing of charge for abetting the commission of
offence of sexual assault. The grounds raised in the criminal appeal is matter
of defense and those grounds does not afford the ground for discharge of
present appellant. Hence, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
akanksha
