Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kamla @ Kamalsingh on 18 September, 2014
1 Mcrc.8067.2014
State of M.P. Vs. Kamla @ Kamal Singh
18.09.2014
Shri Girdhari Singh Chouhan, P.L., for the
applicant/State.
Heard.
This petition under Section 378(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the
petitioner/State seeking leave to prefer an appeal being
aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 22.04.2014
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge
[Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989], Vidisha (M.P.) in SST No.134/2011
whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the
charges levelled against him under Sections 456, 354 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989).
As per prosecution case, on 14.07.2011 the prosecutrix lodged a report to the effect that in night when she was sleeping alongwith her sons Pappu and Prakash, at 0000 hours accused came to her and with an intention to outrage her modesty caught hold of her legs. On hearing her cry, Pappu and Prakash woke up. Then accused fled away from the spot. On the report FIR was lodged and crime was registered against the present respondents.
The learned trial court after considering the matter in its entirety and evidence available on record has acquitted the accused of the alleged offence as mentioned above. Hence, this petition.
2 Mcrc.8067.2014 State of M.P. Vs. Kamla @ Kamal Singh Learned P.L., for the State submitted that the judgment of acquittal is bad in law. No evidence was discussed by the Court and therefore, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed and the leave may be granted.
Having regard to the arguments advanced the impugned judgment has been perused.
On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is found that the prosecutrix was not constant in her version. The evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) was not corroborated by the other material witnesses, namely, Pappu (PW-2), Khilan (PW-3), Prakash (PW-4). The learned trial court in sort of the evidence of the witnesses on record has concluded that the version of the witnesses is full with contradiction, omissions and exaggerations. The age of the prosecutrix was 60 years whereas the accused was aged 25 years at the time of commission of offence which was also taken into consideration and therefore after considering the evidence the court has recorded finding of acquittal.
Having examined the findings recorded by the learned trial court and also considering the arguments advanced by the learned Panel Lawyer, this Court is of the considered view that evidence produced by the prosecution was properly appreciated by the learned trial court. It is well settled principle of law that when two views are possible the view which favours the accused should be adopted. Impugned judgment of acquittal was rightly passed by the learned trial court, which is well merited and does not 3 Mcrc.8067.2014 State of M.P. Vs. Kamla @ Kamal Singh require any interference.
Consequently, Mcrc fails and is hereby dismissed being bereft of substance.
(B.D. Rathi) Judge pd