Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sumit Soni Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 6 September, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
M.Cr.C. No.12378/2012
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 31/7/2012 passed by
Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No.35/2012,
whereby respondent namely Sumit Soni has been acquitted
of the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 8/10/2011 at about 2.30 p.m., respondent trespassed into the house of prosecutrix and subjected her to rape. Report of the incident was lodged by the prosecutrix at Police Station Tikariya 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 found that on the date of incident, prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age. Dr. Kirti Singh (PW11), after examining the prosecutrix prepared the report (Ex.P/17), wherein she noted that no injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix and her hymen was old ruptured and the prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse. Besides this, prosecutrix in para 15 of her examination deposed that respondent was not known to her before the incident. In para 20 she deposed that her maternal grandmother had informed about the incident to her maternal uncle, who in turn had suggested the name of the respondent and when she was writing the application (Ex.P/1), at that time her maternal uncle had told her the name of the respondent. In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found 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)