Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 438 (MP)

Anita Bai v. Shekhar

2016-06-14

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed under section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal dated 13.2.2015 passed by Additional Sessions and Special Judge [(SC/ST) (Prevention of Atrocities)], Harda in Special S.T.No.18/2014 acquitting the respondent No.1 from the offence punishable under sections 456, 354 and 506 in alternate 506/34 of IPC and section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the respondent No.2 from the offence punishable under sections 456 and 506 in alternate 506/34 of IPC. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 28th of March, 2014 at about 12 O'clock in the night, the husband of the prosecutrix had gone to supply the water in the field and the prosecutrix and her children were sleeping at home. At about 1:30 O'clock in the night of 29th of March, 2014, the prosecutrix after hearing the noise opened the door and the respondents No.1 and 2 had entered the house forcefully. Respondent No.1 Shekhar caught hold hand of the prosecutrix and tried to outrage her modesty. Meanwhile, the husband of the prosecutrix came back and she told the incident to her husband. The respondents No.1 and 2 gave threat to them with dire consequences. On the next date, the incident was disclosed to father and mother-in-law of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, she lodged a report in the police station. The police investigated the matter and filed a charge-sheet before the JMFC, Harda, from where, the case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, who framed the charges against the respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under sections 456, 354 and 506 in alternate 506/34 of IPC and section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the respondent No.2 from the offence punishable under sections 456 and 506 in alternate 506/34 of IPC The respondents appeared before learned trial Court and abjured their guilt, on which, the trial is commenced. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW1, her husband Ramkishan as PW2, Punjilal Bakawale, Joint Collector Khandwa as PW3, Vinod Kumar Shrivastava, SDOP, Harda as PW4, Kanchan Singh Thakur, Sub-Inspector as PW5 and Dr. R.K. Vishwakarma as PW6. The prosecution also got exhibited documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW1, her husband Ramkishan as PW2, Punjilal Bakawale, Joint Collector Khandwa as PW3, Vinod Kumar Shrivastava, SDOP, Harda as PW4, Kanchan Singh Thakur, Sub-Inspector as PW5 and Dr. R.K. Vishwakarma as PW6. The prosecution also got exhibited documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. During accused statements, the respondents denied all the evidence put forth against them and their defence was that due to previous enmity they have been implicated in the case. 4. After appreciation of evidence, the respondents were acquitted from the alleged charge by learned trial Court, therefore, the complainant has approached this Court with this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant after taking me through the record of the trial Court as well as statements of prosecution witnesses submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt looking to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, there was no occasion for the trial Court to extend acquittal to the respondents mere on some technical ground. Therefore, impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and this appeal be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 has submitted that the judgment of acquittal of the respondents is just and proper after due appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, which does not require any interference in this appeal. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged after delay of three days against the respondents without any plausible reason. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the entire record, this Court is of the opinion, this appeal does not deserve to be allowed. 8. Learned trial Court disbelieved the statement of the prosecutrix (PW1) on various grounds. The first reason for disbelieving the statement of prosecutrix (PW1) is discussed in detail by the trial Court and found that Rani, 8 years' old daughter of the prosecutrix and Ajay, 6 years' old son of the prosecutrix were also sleeping with the prosecutrix at the relevant point of time. 9. The prosecutrix (PW1) also admitted that at the relevant point of time, Rani and Ajay were awoken, but during police statements, these children did not support the version of the prosecutrix (PW1). This material contradictory fact itself can be the basis of the acquittal of the respondents. 10. 9. The prosecutrix (PW1) also admitted that at the relevant point of time, Rani and Ajay were awoken, but during police statements, these children did not support the version of the prosecutrix (PW1). This material contradictory fact itself can be the basis of the acquittal of the respondents. 10. Learned trial Court also found the second reason that without any plausible explanation or probable cause, FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged after three days. Learned trial Court also found this fact fatal, as this delay is caused because the prosecutrix (PW1) explained the entire matter to her husband and in-laws and after due consultation for long 2-3 days, it was decided that against whom the FIR will be lodged. This delay of lodging FIR (Ex.P-1) is also fatal for the prosecution. 11. Learned trial Court also found that looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of Ramkishan (PW2) husband of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence, therefore, did not rely on his statement also. 12. Learned trial Court also found that medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. It is a well settled principle of law that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in an appeal is not called for. 14. Hence, this appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. L. N. Sakle for appellant; Ms. Neetu Prajapati for respondents No.1 and 2; R. N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.3/State.