Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramnaresh Prajapati on 11 March, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12407
1 CRA-1833-2023
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 11th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1833 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RAMNARESH PRAJAPATI
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Shukla - Government Advocate for the appellant-State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anuradha Shukla
Heard on I.A. No.2568/2023 in which a request has been made to
allow the leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2022
passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Annuppur, District
Annuppur (M.P.) in ST No.07/2019 whereby the respondent was acquitted
from Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on account of some dispute, prosecutrix
was living separately from her husband; she developed physical relationship
with respondent who committed rape with her on 15.02.2016 promising that
he would marry her, but whenever she insisted for marriage, the respondent
avoided her and finally refused to marry her. FIR was accordingly lodged
against respondent which is (Ex.D1). After investigation, charge-sheet was
filed and the respondent faced trial for the offence under Section 376(2)(n).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12407
2 CRA-1833-2023
After concluding trial, the impugned judgment of acquittal was delivered,
observing that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
3. The grounds raised in this application are that the impugned judgment is
illegal and perverse, hence deserves interference. Citing the judgment of
State of Karnataka Vs. GopalKrishna (2005) 9 SCC 291 , Girija Prasad Vs.
State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 and Phool Singh vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1256 , it has been argued that if unreasonable or
perverse findings are given by the Court below, the appellate Court is
required to interfere as it has ample power to appreciate, review and
reconsider the evidence as a whole and that the Court must act responsibly
and sensitively in such matters.
4. We have heard and considered the arguments submitted on behalf of the
appellant-State and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well
as the entire record of the trial court.
5. From the perusal of record, it is evident that prosecutrix in this case was
a major married lady who has admitted in para 7 of her cross-examination
that she was in relationship with respondent for almost 2-21/2 years and had
even become pregnant. She has also admitted that despite making complaint
against respondent, she was having physical relationship with him. It is also
admitted by her that she was aware of the fact that respondent was a married
person who was having wife and children and still she continued in
relationship with respondent for 1 1/2 years. In the light of this testimony of
prosecutrix PW/11, the Court below did not commit any error in holding that
she was a consenting party and having physical relationship with the consent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12407
3 CRA-1833-2023
of a major lady is definitely not an offence. Therefore, the trial Court
committed no error in acquitting the respondent.
6. The appellate Court can appreciate and 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 ", if a possible view has been taken in the impugned
judgment, no interference is required and appellate Court should act and
exercise its power to interfere with the order of acquittal only when the view
taken by the Court below is not legally sustainable."
7. After consideration of facts and evidence available on record, we are of
the opinion that no case has been made out to interfere in the impugned
judgment as it reflects appreciation of factual and legal aspects in correct
perspective, hence no case is made out for admission of this appeal.
8. Accordingly, the application under consideration and also the appeal
stands dismissed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
DevS
