Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 936 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Veer Singh Baghel

2014-08-01

S.K.GANGELE, S.K.PALO

body2014
JUDGMENT 1.Heard on the point of leave to appeal. 2. This petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioner/State assailing the judgment dated 24.12.2013 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T. No. 137 of 2013 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused/respondent under Section 457, 354 and 376 of IPC. 3. As per the prosecution story before the learned Trial Court in brief was that, on 09.02.2013 the prosecutrix with her two year old daughter, Poonam was sleeping at her home at village, Vasantpura. Her husband had gone to other city for earning. In the night, Veersingh was standing in her courtyard. On being asked why he has come to her house the accused embraced her and shut her mouth and committed rape. After commission of the act, the accused ran away from her house. On the following day she reported this to her brother-in-law (Jeth). She went to the Police Station Raun, District Bhind to lodge report. On the basis of her report Crime No. 27 of 2013 under Section 456 and 354 of IPC has been registered. On 15.02.2013 she filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Bhind about the commission of rape. Therefore, Section 376 of IPC was added. completing investigation charge-sheet was filed. 4. After committal of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges and after adducing the evidence pronounced the impugned judgment. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration. The prosecutrix is a married woman of 22 years. The medical officer (PW-7) has submitted the report Ex-P3, after examining the prosecutrix. No internal and external injury has been found on the body of the prosecutrix. There has been some enmity between the complainant and the accused. The defense witnesses have deposed that Rs. 10,000/- and two bags of Bazraa was given to Banwari the husband of the prosecutrix by the accused. This version has been admitted by PW-4, the sister-in-law of the prosecutrix. This gave rise to a valid and reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. No injury on the body of the prosecutrix, the previous enmity and contradictions and omissions brought on record has been clearly discussed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has also given the cogent reasons for its decision. This gave rise to a valid and reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. No injury on the body of the prosecutrix, the previous enmity and contradictions and omissions brought on record has been clearly discussed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has also given the cogent reasons for its decision. That being so, we decline to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Court. Hence, petition for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.