Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 715 (MP)

Sunita Bai v. State of M. P.

2014-06-24

S.K.GANGELE, S.K.PALO

body2014
Judgment: 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.02.2014 of acquittal of respondent No. 2, Bhamma @ Bhawar Lal pronounced in Special Sessions Trial No. 46/11 (State of M.P. Vs. Mohan Babu & A no. the prosecutrix has filed this criminal appeal assailing the same on different grounds. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that P.W.2, Tulsi Ram alongwith P.W.3, Raboodi Bai, P.W.4, Kedar Bai and other persons lodged a report of guminsan at Police Station Jamner District Guna about missing of the prosecutrix, wife of Tulsi Ram. The complainant, Tulsiram married to the prosecutrix 1 1/2 year before the date of incident. On the basis of the report, Guminsan No. 15/10 was lodged. During the investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered on 23.04.2011. Head Constable, Bhagwan Singh Dhangi (P.W.8) after the recovery of the prosecutrix has filed a report, Exhibit P-7 on the basis of which FIR, Exhibit P-6 was lodged under Section 366, 376, 342, 506-B/34 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(12) & 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The prosecutrix after her recovery narrated the story that she had gone to attend the call of nature with one Kedar Bai. Accused persons came in a motorcycle. Absconded accused Mohan was the rider. Co-accused, Bhamma @ Bhawar Lal was with him. They stopped the prosecutrix by showing a knife. They threatened her that if she does not accompany them, they will kill her mother-in-law. They took her to Village Lateri, Kedar Bai has seen the incident. 4. After about 4-5 months, the prosecutrix returned to the village. She narrated the whole story, therefore, her husband took her to the Police Station. She also narrated that she was kept at Village Lateri in a room for 8 days. Accused, Bhamma left the place and accused, Mohan committed sexual intercourse with her. From there she was taken to Village Raghogarh by accused Mohan. There also she was kept in a room and accused Mohan committed sexual intercourse with her. From there she was taken to Guna and again kept in a room and she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Accused, Mohan during this period was constantly threatening her of her life. 5. In the absence of the accused, Mohan she went to her in-laws house. Met her father-in-law, mother-in-law and her son. 6. From there she was taken to Guna and again kept in a room and she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Accused, Mohan during this period was constantly threatening her of her life. 5. In the absence of the accused, Mohan she went to her in-laws house. Met her father-in-law, mother-in-law and her son. 6. Accused, Mohan has been declared absconder during the course of trial. 7. Trial has been conducted only against accused, Bhamma. He was charged under Sections 366/34, 506-B, 376, 344 read with Section 120-B and Section 506-B of IPC. He abjured the charges. 8. The learned Trial Court pronounced the judgment as regarding accused, Bhamma @ Bhawar Lal and acquitted him on all the charges. 9. The prosecutrix has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the learned Trial Court erred in holding the accused not guilty. The evidence, facts and circumstances of the case has not been properly appreciated. The material facts on record were not considered. The prosecutrix's statement about the delay has not been appreciated. There was sufficient material on record to prove the charges against respondent No. 2, Bhamma. The appellant urged that the impugned order is perverse and, therefore, it be set-aside and the respondent No. 2 be punished under Sections 366, 376/34, 342, 506-B & 120-B of IPC. 10. We have gone through the record. It is evident that the prosecutrix is a married woman of 25 years. She had gone with the accused persons and returned after 4-5 months. Statement of Kedar Bai, P.W.5 seems to be unnatural. Had she been present at the time of so-called abduction, she could have narrated the same to the family members of the prosecutrix and the guminsan report Exhibit D-1 could have been different. 11. The statement of Kedar Bai also suffers from many contradictions and omissions. In her statement, she has mentioned that both the accused persons came on a motorcycle covering their face by cloth. This is not mentioned in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-4). In her statement, she has also stated that her Bhabi (the prosecutrix) left the place sitting in the motorcycle throwing her dabba (container). 12. The statement of prosecutrix (P.W.1), also does not give a true version of the story. It also suffers from several contradictions and omissions. In her statement, she has also stated that her Bhabi (the prosecutrix) left the place sitting in the motorcycle throwing her dabba (container). 12. The statement of prosecutrix (P.W.1), also does not give a true version of the story. It also suffers from several contradictions and omissions. Had she visited her in-laws place during the confinement by the accused Mohan, she could have stated the same to her in-laws. Why she did not mention the name of the accused and why she did not tell them about the so-called abduction and threats to them is not clear. She returned back to the accused Mohan after meeting her in-laws and son explains that she was not under threat. Besides all this, without raising any alarm, her visiting to different places with the accused also indicate her consent. Her statement therefore does not inspire any confidence. 13. In this regard, law laid down in Kashiram v. State of U.P., (1988) 3 Crimes 840 (MP) can be profitably followed. 14. So far as the present respondent No. 2, Bhamma @ Bhawar Lal is concerned, his act of commission of the offence is limited to the extent that he helped the main accused, Mohan in abducting the prosecutrix. 15. Under the above circumstances, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of respondent No. 2, Bhamma @ Bhawar Lal does not suffer from any perversity. 16. We are fully in agreement with the judgment pronounced by the learned Trial Court, therefore, the present appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.