Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 85 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Nilesh

2014-01-16

M.C.GARG, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2014
ORDER 1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh under section 378(3) CrPC seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 12.3.2013 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T.No. 382/2012, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him under section 376(1) and 343 of IPC by holding that in this case, the prosecutrix, who was aged about 19 years had been moving around with the respondent of her own free will. She stayed with the respondent at various places in hotels and public places, but never made any complaint about the commission of alleged rape. Moreover, she was a married lady and was having extra marital relations with the respondent for quite some time and infact she falsely implicated the respondent. She stayed with the respondent at various places in hotels and public places, but never made any complaint about the commission of alleged rape. Moreover, she was a married lady and was having extra marital relations with the respondent for quite some time and infact she falsely implicated the respondent. Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 are relevant which are reproduced hereunder:- 15- vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 us U;k;ky;hu dFku esa igys vkjksih uhys’k dks igpkuus ls badkj fd;k fQj mls igpkuk vkSj izfrijh{k.k ds pj.k Øekad 5 esa ;g dgk fd vkjksih uhys’k mlds HkkbZ dk nksLr gS blfy, mls tkurh gS vkSj og cklUnk xkao x;h Fkh tgka mlls vkjksih uhys’k dk ifjp; gqvk Fkk vkSj mlus vkjksih uhys’k ls eksckby ls ckr gksus laca/kh rF;ksa ls badkj fd;k gS tcfd vuqla/kku ds nkSjku ys[kc) fd, x, dFku iz-Mh- 2 tkap fjiksVZ iz-Mh- 5 esa mlds eksckby uacj dk mYys[k gS tks vkjksih uhys’k ls vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 dk iwoZ ifjp; gksuk vkSj eksckby esa ckrphr gksus laca/kh rF; dks nf’kZr djrk gSA vfHk;ksD=h v-lk-1 vkjksih uhys’k ds lkFk ek:fr osu esa x;h ,slk vuqla/kku ds nkSjku ys[kc) fd, x, dFku iz-Mh- 2 ls ifjyf{kr gksrk gS mls tcjnLrh dkj esa ys tk;k x;k ;k mls dksbZ oLrq lqa?kkbZ xbZ bl laca/k esa mlds dFku fo’oluh; ugha gSA vfHk;ksD=h v-lk-1 dk ;g dguk ugha gS fd og fo’okl esa vkjksih uhys’k ds lkFk dkj esa cSB x;h vkSj fQj vkjksih uhys’k mls tcjnLrh ys x;kA vfHk;kstu lk{; vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls ;g ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd vfHk;ksD=h v-lk-1 mldh ethZ ls vkjksih uhys’k ds lkFk x;h Fkh ;fn mldh ethZ ds fcuk ek:fr osu xkM+h ls mls ys tk;k rks LokHkkfod :i ls og xkM+h esa fpYykpksV djrh ijUrq mlds }kjk ,slk ugha fd;k x;k vkSj blds mijkar ?kVuk ds ckn mls bankSj ys tk;k x;k] bankSj ls og vkSadkjs’oj x;h mlus cl esa ;k=k dh dbZ txg cl :dh] mlesa ;k=hx.k p<+s mrjs vkSadkjs’oj x;s] clLVSaM ls gksVy esa x;h ogha ,d fnu vkSj ,d jkr gksVy esa :dh vkSj fQj fdjk;s dh ek:fr osu ls vkSadkjs’oj ls mTtSu vk;s fQj mTtSu us fxjukj gksVy esa :dh bu lc LFkkuksa ij vfHk;ksD=h us dksbZ f’kdk;r ugha dh] fpYykpksV ugha dh vkSj ;g rF; vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 ds vkjksih uhys’k ds lkFk mldh lgefr ls tkus dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks nf’kZr djrk gSA 16- nsoka’k gksVy vkSadkjs’oj eSustj ‘;ke v-lk- 4 us Hkh vfHk;ksD=h v-lk-1 vkSj vkjksih dks mldks gksVy esa fnukad 11-6-12 dks jfo rksej vkSj johuk rksej ds uke ls gksVy esa :duk crk;k gS vkSj nksuksa us ,d nwljs dks ifr iRuh gksuk crk;k Fkk vkSj ;k=h jftLVj iz-Mh- 8 gSA gksVy esa Hkh vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 us dksbZ f’kdk;r ugha dh og u’ks ;k csgks’kh dh gkyr esa #dus gh ugha fn;k tkrkA 17- vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 ‘kknh’kqnk o;Ld efgyk gS vkSj ?kVuk ds le; vkjksih uhys’k ds lkFk mldh ethZ ls ek:fr osu esa bankSj x;h Fkh fQj bankSj ls vkSadkjs’oj] cl ls xbZ ogka ls fdjk;s dh ek:fr osu esa mTtSu vk;hA vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 vkSadkjs’oj esa gksVy esa jgh] mTtSu esa gksVy esa jgh mlus dgh dksbZ f’kdk;r ugha dhA 2. However, there are contradictions in the statement made by the prosecutrix and the FIR as is apparent from the reading of paragraph 18. The medical evidence is also against the case of the prosecution. Paragraph 20 of the judgment is relevant which is reproduced for the sake of reference:- 20- esfMdy ijh{k.k esa vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 ds ‘kjhj ij dksbZ pksV ugha vk;h ;g MkWDVj T;ksfr esMe v-lk- 6 ds dFkuksa ls Li”V gS vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 }kjk mls u’ks dk batsD’ku yxk, tkus ds laca/k esa mlds dFku fo’oluh; ugha gS blfy, vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 fofHkUu LFkkuksa ij tks vkjksih uhys’k ds lkFk jgh gS vkSj mlds lkFk tks ‘kkjhfjd laca/k LFkkfir gksuk vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 us crk;k gS og mldh bPNk ds fo#) Fks ,slk ugha dgk tk ldrk gS cfYd vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 lger i{k Fkh blfy, vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 ds esfMdy ijh{k.k esa vkSj mlds oL=ksa esa rFkk LykbM esa tks oh;Z ds /kCcs vkSj ‘kqØk.kq iz-Mh- 18 dh fjiksVZ vuqlkj ik, x, gSa ml vk/kkj ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 ds lkFk cykRlax gqvk gS vkSj og vkjksih uhys’k vkSj vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 ds e/; ‘kkjhfjd laca/k LFkkfir gksus dh iqf”V vo’; djrk gS ijUrq muds e/; ‘kkjhfjd laca/k vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 dh lgefr ls LFkkfir gq, gSaA vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 yxHkx 21&22 o”kZ dh fookfgr efgyk gS] vkjksih uhys’k ls mldk iwoZ ifjp; Fkk blfy, vkjksih uhys’k us vfHk;ksD=h v-lk- 1 ds lkFk eSFkqu dj cykRlax fd;k gS ;g vfHk;kstu lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha gSA 3. Taking the commutative evidence which as come on record, the trial Court acquitted the respondent. We find no reason to grant leave to file an appeal. 4. Dismissed.