Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhupendra @ Guddu on 11 March, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12326
1 CRA-295-2023
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 11 th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 295 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
BHUPENDRA @ GUDDU
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Shukla - Government Advocate for the appellant-State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anuradha Shukla
Heard on I.A. No.214/2023 in which a request has been made to allow the
leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2022 passed by
Special Judge, POCSO & SC/ST Act, Betul District Betul in SCATR No.02/2018
whereby the respondent was acquitted from Section 376(2)(N), 506 (Part -II) of
IPC, Section 6 R/W 5(L) of POCSO Act 2012, Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(b)(i) & (ii) of
SC/ST Act 1989 and Section 67(a) of IT Act 2000.
2. Brief facts of the case are that prosecutrix had stayed in the house of
respondent on the night of 20.11.2017 where respondent raped her and assured
that he would marry her. He had shared a photo of prosecutrix on Whatsapp in
which the two were seen together and prosecutrix was wearing a Mangalsutra. He
threatened the prosecutrix that he would defame her if she did not serve his needs;
he also threatened her for life. On the basis of written complaint made by the
prosecutrix, FIR was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against the respondent. The prosecution adduced oral as well as documentary
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12326
2 CRA-295-2023
evidence during trial, but the trial Court acquitted the respondent from all the
charges framed against him.
3. The grounds raised in this petition are that the impugned judgment passed by
the trial Court is not sustainable as it is based upon improper and incorrect
appreciation of evidence; the learned trial Court completely failed to consider the
direct and conclusive evidence available on record. The age of prosecutrix was
below 18 years and she had stated she was raped by the respondent; even if her
consent was there, it was immaterial for the reason of her minority. 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.
It has therefore been prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and appeal
should be admitted for hearing.
4. Learned counsel for the State has been heard at length and the record has been
perused.
5. In this case, the age of prosecutrix (PW/5) was a significant fact, but the same
had not been proved by cogent evidence. Vasudev (PW/13) has admitted that the
entries in register were not made by him, nor any signatures were obtained of the
parents of child and further the authenticity of that register is also not established.
It has also came on record that the parents of prosecutrix namely (PW/1) and
(PW/2) have failed to prove her date of birth and even the fact that she was minor
at the time of incident. The statements of prosecutrix reveal that she was a
consenting party and engaging in physical relationship with a major girl with her
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12326
3 CRA-295-2023
consent is not a crime.
6. In the case of Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1796 , the
Apex Court has considered the scope and ambit of Section 35 of the Indian
Evidence Act in relation to entries made in register regarding the age and has held
that such a register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry
or who gave the date of birth is examined. Here, the evidence of prosecution has
failed on both these parameters.
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. Accordingly, the application under consideration and also the appeal
stand dismissed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
DevS
