Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 739 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Sunil Banjara

2014-06-27

AJIT SINGH, N.K.GUPTA

body2014
Judgment: N.K. Gupta, J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. By the present application, the State has sought for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17.5.2013 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in ST No. 23/2013 whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 4.10.2012 the complainant Sitaram (PW-3), who was the resident of Village Karpat (Police Station Raisen District Raisen) went to Raisen to bring some articles from the market. At about 5:00 PM when he reached to his house, he found that his wife-prosecutrix (PW-6) was missing, therefore he lodged a missing report Ex. P-3 at Police Station Raisen. On 16.11.2012 the prosecutrix appeared before the SHO of Police Station Kotwali, Raisen, who was brought by Supyar Singh (PW-12) on a motorcycle and thereafter she had informed that on 4.10.2012 the respondent took her with a promise of marriage and thereafter kept at Bhopal and also committed rape upon her. After due investigation the charge sheet was filed. 4. After considering the prosecution evidence and submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-State, it appears that the prosecutrix was a married woman aged 25 years having two children. Her story that the respondent took her forcefully and by promise to marry her appears to be fake. When she was already married, then nobody could convince her for remarriage without her consent. However, the prosecutrix against her case diary statement has stated that the respondent told her that an accident took place of her husband Sitaram, and therefore she went with the respondent. Guddi Bai (PW-5) and Vardi Bai (PW-4) have stated that the respondent came to the house of the prosecutrix and told that an accident took place of Sitaram, husband of the prosecutrix, therefore she went with the respondent. Vardi Bai was the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix, who has also stated that she told her son when he reached to his house that the respondent took the prosecutrix. If such fact was correct, then certainly Sitaram would have informed in the missing report Ex. P-3 that the respondent took the prosecutrix. Under such circumstances, the story that the respondent took the prosecutrix with the pretext of accident of her husband appears to be a falsehood. If such fact was correct, then certainly Sitaram would have informed in the missing report Ex. P-3 that the respondent took the prosecutrix. Under such circumstances, the story that the respondent took the prosecutrix with the pretext of accident of her husband appears to be a falsehood. A married woman of 25 years of age having two children went with the respondent, then certainly she was a consenting party. 5. According to the prosecutrix, she was confined in a room for 40 days and the respondent was keeping a lock in the door of that room. However, the room was situated in the dense locality and the prosecutrix could cry in absence of the respondent, and she could be rescued by others. Under such circumstances, the allegation made by the prosecutrix appears to be incorrect. Hence when the prosecutrix was a consenting party, neither any offence under Section 376 nor 366 of IPC was made out against the respondent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent for the aforesaid charges. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no reason so that any interference can be done in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court by granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the present application filed by the applicant-State is hereby dismissed at motion stage. 7. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.