Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P vs Lalo @ Akash on 1 September, 2015
MCRC-2435-2014
( STATE OF M.P Vs LALO @ AKASH)
01-09-2015
Shrimati Sangita Pachori, learned GA for the petitioner State.
Heard on the question of admission.
On behalf of the State, this petition is preferred under section
378(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal
of the respondent from the charge of sections 363, 366 and 376 of
IPC and section 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( for short, the âAct of 2012â) given by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in ST 325/2013 vide judgment dated 16/12/2013.
After taking us through the record of the trial Court along with impugned judgment, by referring to the deposition of the Radiologist Dr.ML Agrawal (PW 12) argued that on carrying out ossification test of the prosecutrix, her age was found more than 16 years but below 18 years and in such premises, firstly she said that in any case even in the light of the deposition of the prosecutrix if offence of rape was not made out, even then the Trial Court was bound to consider the aforesaid report of the Radiologist to convict the respondent for the offence under sections 363 and 366 of IPC. In continuation, she said that in the available circumstances, it is apparent that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age on the date of incident and undisputedly, she was taken by the respondent from the lawful custody of her parents without consent of such parents and therefore, the impugned judgment on such consideration, requires reconsideration and re- appreciation and prayed for grant of leave to appeal till such extent against the impugned judgment. In the light of the deposition of the prosecutrix, she has not make any submissions for grant of leave to appeal with respect to the offence of section 376 of IPC. Having heard counsel, keeping in view her arguments, we have carefully gone through the record of the Trial Court including the deposition of the aforesaid Radiologist as well as the prosecutrix so also other available ocular evidence as well as exhibited papers. From mere perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix (PW 4) it is apparent that she was not taken away by the respondent from the lawful custody of her parents, rather she herself informed the respondent through mobile phone that she is interested to get marry with him and she voluntarily left her home to go to the place of the respondent from where they went to various places; also stayed for sometime in some hotels or other places. In such circumstances, it could not be said that the prosecutrix was taken away by the respondent from the lawful custody of her parents without their consent because the respondent himself has not visited the place of residence of parents of the prosecutrix and if the prosecutrix herself had come from her residence to accompany with the respondent, then, it could not be deemed that the respondent had committed the alleged offence of section 363 or 366 of IPC.
It is also apparent from the deposition of the prosecutrix that the respondent has not committed any physical act or intercourse/rape on her. Even no such allegation, in any manner, has been made by the prosecutrix. So in such premises, in the light of the available evidence, we have not found any perversity, illegality, irregularity or anything against the propriety of law in the approach and findings given by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment for extending acquittal to the respondent.
Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.
(U.C. MAHESHWARI) (SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE