Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 369 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Mahesh

2019-05-08

S.K.AWASHTI

body2019
ORDER 1. The judgment of absolvitur passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone (West Nimar) in Special Case No. 35/2017, has been made pivot by the State of M.P. by preferring this application for leave to file an appeal under section 378(3) of the CrPC acquitting the respondent from the charges of offence punishable under sections 354(d), 509 and 506(II) of the IPC along with section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this matter, suffice it to say that the respondent was tried for the offence punishable under sections 354(d), 509 and 506(II) of the IPC along with section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. Victim is a minor girl aged about 14 years. On going through her testimony, she testified in her Court statement that she was studying in class 9th at the time of alleged incident and on 14.12.2016, when she was going to school, the respondent/accused teases her. She narrated the incident to her uncle and mother. Thereafter, she lodged the FIR (Ex. P-3). 4. From the Court statement of the victim (PW 2), it appears that there are material contradictions and omissions has come in her statement. Prem Singh (PW 3)-uncle of the victim, admits in his cross-examination that there was a quarrel took place between him and the father of the accused, looking to the aforesaid, possibility of false implication of the respondent cannot be ruled out. Considering the findings given by the trial Court in paras No. 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent from the alleged offence. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor could not point out that how and in what manner the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not possible or plausible. No perversity could be set fourth in the impugned judgment. 6. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that findings recorded by the trial Court does not appears to be perverse or illegal, which can be interfered by this Court. No perversity could be set fourth in the impugned judgment. 6. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that findings recorded by the trial Court does not appears to be perverse or illegal, which can be interfered by this Court. It is well settled proposition of law that if the trial Court after due appreciation of the material available on record came to the conclusion of acquittal and the findings is not perverse then normally it should not be interfered by the appellate Court. 7. Resultantly, no grounds are available to grant leave to appeal against impugned judgment of acquittal, hence, the petition is hereby dismissed.