Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Pramod Sharma on 4 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5741
1 CRA-4674-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4674 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
PRAMOD SHARMA
Appearance:
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - learned Government Advocate for the
appellant/State.
Shri Vivek Singh - learned Senior Advocate for the respondent with
Shri Rajesh Yadav - learned Advocate for the respondent No.1.
JUDGEMENT
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh
Heard on I.A No.4651/2023 which is an application under Section
378(3) of the Cr.P.C seeking grant of leave to appeal arising out of judgment
dated 24.12.2022 delivered in S.T. NO.159/2017 by Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh whereby the respondent has
been acquitted from the charges of Section 302, 201, 376(2) (f) & 506 (Part-
II) of the IPC.
2. Facts in brief are that in a case arising out of crime No.102/2017
registered at Police Station Pachor, District Rajgarh regarding murder and
disappearance of body of the mother of child/victim (PW-1) and committing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5741
2 CRA-4674-2023
penetrative sexual assault towards a child (PW-1) born on 08.02.2000 as per
High School Certificate Examination,2018 (Ex.P/35 C) and below the age of
18 years on the date of incident i.e. 06.02.2017 and earlier and prior to that
date for repeatedly committing sexual assault and extending the criminal
intimidation for not disclosing the incident. The respondent have family
relationship with the victim also.
3. To bring home the guilt prosecution examined as many as 14
witnesses and in examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C
respondent/accused took the defence that deceased had mortgaged her
agricultural land that Manohar Sansi and he extended financial assistance of
Rs.17,00,000/- to redeem the mortgage. With a motive to avoid the re-
payment of the money borrowed, he has been falsely implicated in the case
and examined Shalu Sharma (DW-1), Arun Saxena (DW-2) and Pramod
Sharma (DW-3) and Court examined the husband of deceased as CW-1.
4. Trial Court convicted the respondent under Section 376, 376(2)(n)
of the IPC and Section 6 r/w 5 of the POCSO Act, 2012 but acquitted the
respondent from Section 302, 201, 376(2) (f) & 506 (Part-II) of the IPC.
5. Challenging the acquitted this application has been preferred
submitting that acquittal of the appellant is unwarranted. Acquittal has been
recorded ignoring the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. PW-1 is the eye
witness of murder and relying on the testimony of PW-1 respondent has
been convicted for committing penetrative sexual assault but has ben
acquitted regarding the murder which was committed in the course of said
incident.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5741
3 CRA-4674-2023
6. Counsel for the respondent has supported not only the acquittal but
argued that conviction for rest of the Section is meritless no case for leave to
appeal is made out.
Perused the record.
7. 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."
8. Now, we are considering the case in hand. Trial Court has based his
findings of acquittal recording the reasons in para 111 of the judgment that
appellant was unable to execute the murder as he was suffering from injuries
in his left hand as per Ex.D/6 to D/12 and no evidence of struggle were
found during the preparation of the spot map.
9. Trial Court in para 108 has recorded the finding that documents
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5741
4 CRA-4674-2023
adduced in defence Ex.D/6 to D/12 does not establish his innocence.
Accordingly, the finding recorded in para 111 and 108 are contradictory.
Considering the testimony of PW-1 who is the victim of penetrative sexual
assault, it is a fit case to grant the leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the
Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, I.A No.4651/2023 is allowed. The respondent is in
custody. Let a copy of the judgment be provided to respondent through Jail
Superintendent, Bhopal.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
akanksha
