Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 177 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Suresh

2017-02-03

RAJENDRA MAHAJAN

body2017
ORDER 1. They are heard at considerable length. 2. The applicant/State has filed an application under section 378(3) of the CrPC seeking leave to present an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 20.3.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Special Sessions Case No.59/2014 titled State of M.P. through Police Station Kundipura, District Chhindwara v. Suresh acquitting respondent Suresh of the charges under sections 354 of the IPC and 7 r/w 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that in the night of 4.3.2014, the victim-girl (PW1) aged about 14 years with her two younger sisters went to the house of the respondent, who is her neighbour, for sleep-over upon the directions of her parents as they had gone out of town to attend a marriage. At about 2:00 a.m. while the victim-girl was fast sleeping, the respondent put his hands upon her breasts with a sexual intent. Upon her objections, he removed his hands. 4. Upon the perusal of the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent of the charges mainly on two grounds :- “(i) The day of incident is the night of 4.3.2014 and 5.3.2014, whereas the victim-girl lodged the written FIR (Ex.P-1) at the outpost Dharamtekari of Chhindwara Police Station on 18.3.2014. Thus, there is a delay of fourteen days in the lodgement of the FIR. Neither the victim-girl nor her mother (PW2) has properly explained the delay in lodging the FIR in their Court statements, whereas the victim-girl has stated in para 2 of her deposition that she had narrated the incident to her mother on the following morning of the incident. (ii) As per the evidence of the victim-girl, the house of the applicant consists of only one room in which on the fateful night she, her two younger sisters, the respondent's two daughters, his wife and he himself were sleeping. On both the sides of the respondent, his wife and his daughters were sleeping. In that situation, the respondent would have not dared to touch the breasts of the victim-girl inappropriately. Thus, the incident is highly improbable.” 5. In the course of arguments, the learned Panel Lawyer submits that the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent upon misappreciation and misreading of the evidence of the victim-girl and her mother. In that situation, the respondent would have not dared to touch the breasts of the victim-girl inappropriately. Thus, the incident is highly improbable.” 5. In the course of arguments, the learned Panel Lawyer submits that the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent upon misappreciation and misreading of the evidence of the victim-girl and her mother. He, therefore, prays for grant of leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent submits that impugned judgment of acquittal is based upon proper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, no interference by this Court with the impugned judgment is called for. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record. From the perusal of the depositions of the victim girl and her mother, I have noticed following material evidence :- (i) In paras 2 and 11, the victim-girl has deposed that on the following morning of the incident, she had narrated the incident to her mother. However, upon perusal of the depositions of the victim-girl and her mother, I find that they have not properly explained the delay of fourteen days in lodgement of the FIR. Thus, the delay assumes significance, making the prosecution story highly doubtful. (ii) The victim-girl has innocently admitted in paras 9 and 10 of her cross-examination that her neighbour Kishore has good relations with her father. He has been on inimical terms with the respondent before the incident. On the eve of Holi festival, her father had a quarrel with the respondent. Thereafter, she lodged the FIR. In view of the aforesaid admission of the victim-girl, there is an element of false implication of the applicant in the case. (iii) The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed in the impugned judgment that taking into consideration the fact-situation of the house of the respondent, it is highly improbable that he would dare to touch the breasts of the victim-girl with a sexual intent when his grown-up daughters and wife were sleeping with them. 7. For the reasons and discussions afore stated, I hold that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in law or on facts by acquitting the respondent of the charges framed against him. Hence, the impugned judgment of acquittal is justifiable and sustainable in law and on facts. 7. For the reasons and discussions afore stated, I hold that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in law or on facts by acquitting the respondent of the charges framed against him. Hence, the impugned judgment of acquittal is justifiable and sustainable in law and on facts. Therefore, no interference by this Court with the impugned judgment is warranted in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Bhagwati and others v. State of U.P. [(1976 SCC (Cr.) 388)], Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka [ (2007)4 SCC 415 )], Ashok Rai v. State of U.P. and others [(2014 AIR SCW 3406)], and Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [ (2016)4 SCC 357 )]. 8. Consequently, I dismiss the application in limine at the stage of admission. 9. Accordingly, this case is finally disposed of. 10. Let the record of the trial Court be sent back with a copy of this order without delay.