Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Nand Kishore Judgement Given By: ... on 6 September, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
M.Cr.C. No.13352/2009
06.09.13
Per B.D.Rathi,J
Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the
applicant-State.
Heard on admission.
This application for grant of leave to appeal has been
preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being
aggrieved with the judgment dated 16/9/2009 passed by I
Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in Sessions Trial
No.98/2008, whereby respondents namely Nand Kishore
and Gulab have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10/1/08 at about 4 p.m., at Jamanya Nala, respondents forcibly took the prosecutrix away from the company of her relatives Rukmi Bai, Sonay Bai, Samay Bai and Jaya and kept her in a Jungle for three days, where respondent Nand Kishore subjected her to rape. Thereafter, they took her to Makda Jungle and kept her there in a hut for a week, and during that period also, respondent Nand Kishore persistently subjected her to sexual assault. Crime No.11/08 was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Dy. Advocate General, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.
After considering the age-related evidence on record, trial Court in para 17 of the impugned judgment, found that on the date of incident, prosecutrix was between 16 to 19 years of age. As per the prosecution version, prosecutrix was taken in presence of her relatives Rukmi Bai, Sonay bai, Samay Bai and Jaya Bai, whereas Narendra Patan (PW6) who recorded the missing person report at the instance of her father Chhotelal (PW1), deposed that Chhotelal while stating the age of the prosecutrix to be 17 years, had not informed as to who had taken her. Dr. Sandhya Rangari (PW20), who had examined the prosecutrix and prepared report (Ex.P/15), did not notice any injury on her body or private part. According to her, the hymen was old ruptured and prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse. There is material inconsistency in the prosecution version and the Roznamacha Sanha (Ex.D/2) recorded at the instance of father of the prosecutrix, wherein it is mentioned that prosecutrix while talking with the sons of Kumbhi, had gone with them. Prosecution could not explain that when it was well within the knowledge of Chhotelal through his relatives present on the spot that prosecutrix had been forcibly taken by the respondents, then why such a report was lodged that prosecutrix had gone somewhere without informing. Accordingly, the trial Court found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.
Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view. As such, no interference is called for with the judgment of acquittal in question.
The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)