Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 136 (MP)

Palua Rawat v. Pradeep Rawat

2014-01-29

D.K.PALIWAL, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred under section 372 of Cr. P.C. being aggrieved with the acquittal of respondent no.1 for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376(1) and section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, passed by 3rd ASJ, Shivpuri in S.T. No.187/2013. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and material in proper perspective and erred in holding that the victim is not below the age of 18 years and further held that the victim was the consenting party. From the statement of the victim (PW 9) as well as from the statement of Ramgopal (PW 10) and document Ex.P/12 and P/13, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that date of birth of victim is 8.6.1997, therefore, on the date of incident she was below 18 years and was minor. The learned trial Court erred in holding that because radiological examination of the victim has not been done, hence the date of birth mentioned in Ex.P/12 and P/13, held to be reliable. Thus, the learned trial Court has committed error in acquitting the respondent No.1. 3. We have perused the record of the learned trial Court. 4. The victim (PW 9) was stated her age as 19 years and also stated that she accompanied the respondent No.1/accused she was having love affair with Pradeep and her father wanted to perform her marriage with a person, who is double to her age. She has been declared hostile and on being cross-examined she denied that her age is 16 years. Palua (PW 2), who is father of the victim, though he has stated that his daughter is aged 13-14 years but in cross-examination he has admitted that he did not know the exact date of birth of his daughter. He has mentioned the date of birth of his daughter at the time of admission on estimation. Satobai is the mother of the victim. In cross-examination she admitted that her daughter had gone with respondent no.1 on her own will. Dr. Anjana Jain (PW 7) examined the victim and stated that her secondary sexual characters were fully developed. She referred the victim for radiological examination for ascertaining her age. However, Rajendra Sharma (PW 11) failed to assign any reason why he has not sent the victim for radiological examination. Dr. Anjana Jain (PW 7) examined the victim and stated that her secondary sexual characters were fully developed. She referred the victim for radiological examination for ascertaining her age. However, Rajendra Sharma (PW 11) failed to assign any reason why he has not sent the victim for radiological examination. Abhay Pratap Singh (PW 12) has also admitted the same in para-4. 5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid evidence available on record, in our opinion, the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, cogent reasons have been assigned in support of the findings, we see no reason to disagree with the well merited acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. In our opinion learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent No.1. The appeal is devoid of any merits, hence it is dismissed.