Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1262 (MP)

Chandravatti Bai v. State of M. P.

2015-12-18

R.S.JHA

body2015
ORDER 1. The appellant has filed this appeal against acquittal of the respondent No.2 for alleged offence punishable under sections 366 and 363 of the IPC. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Court below has wrongly disbelieved the statement of the prosecutrix PW1 Chandravatti Bai regarding commission of the offence by the respondent No.2 by taking into consideration the minor discrepancy which amounts to gross illegality and perversity in appreciation of evidence. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding recorded by the Court below regarding the age is contrary to the evidence available on record as the prosecutrix was minor at the time of commission of the offence. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, it is observed that the respondent No.2/accused was prosecuted for the alleged offence punishable under sections 366 and 363 of the IPC. The Court below on the basis of the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix Rajmotin Bai PW3 and the document on record has recorded a finding to the effect that prosecutrix at the time of commission of offence was 18 years old. Nothing has been pointed out to indicate that the Court below has wrongly appreciated the statement of Rajmotin Bai PW3, mother of the prosecutrix or document on record. 4. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Court below regarding the age of the prosecutrix. Even otherwise, the present case is not one where the respondent No.2 has been accused for having committed rape, in such circumstances, finding recorded by the Court below regarding age of the prosecutrix/appellant is just and proper. 5. Quite apart from the above, the Court below by taking into consideration the statements of the prosecutrix PW1, her mother Rajmotin Bai PW3 and brother of the prosecutrix PW 2 Arjun Ahir, has recorded a finding to the effect that the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house with her mother, father and brother and thereafter she went away with the respondent No.2 and stayed with him for three days. The Court below has recorded the aforesaid finding by taking into consideration the fact that there is no evidence on record to indicate how the respondent No.2/accused entered into the house of the prosecutrix and took her away without the other family members who were also sleeping with her, coming to know about it and as to how and why the appellant/prosecutrix did not raise any alarm or inform anybody for three days during which period she stayed with the respondent No.2/accused and on the basis of the aforesaid finding, has disbelieved the statement of the prosecutrix. 6. The Court below has taken into consideration the fact that there was serious omission and contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix PW1 inasmuch as she did not state anything about being threatened by the respondent No.2/accused in the case diary statement but for the first time she made a statement before the Court below that she had been threatened by the respondent No.2 on the point of knife and that this contradiction and omission read with other lacuna in her statement made it totally unreliable. 7. The Court below on the basis of the aforesaid analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on the record, has recorded a finding to the effect that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and in such circumstances has acquitted the respondent No.2/accused. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order warranting any interference, moreso, the Court below has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has not committed any perversity in the impugned order. 8. The appeal being meritless is accordingly dismissed.