Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Girdhari And Anr.Adesh on 24 July, 2014
M.Cr.C.No.670/2014
24.07.2014
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the petitioner/State.
This order shall dispose of the application filed by the
State of Madhya Pradesh under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. seeking
leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 18.10.2013
delivered by the Special Judge, Dhar in S.T.No.19/2012
whereby the case of the prosecution instituted against the
respondents under Section 376 (1), 450,323 and 506-B of the
IPC and Section 3(1)(ii) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 has been decided against the prosecution thereby acquitting the respondents of the charges levelled against them.
2. According to the learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioner it is a case where there is evidence against the respondents which may be sufficient to convict them if the leave to file appeal is granted.
3. We have heard the Government Pleader and perused the judgment. We find that in this matter the order of the learned Special Judge acquitting the respondents of the charges is based upon the evidence which has come on record which goes to show that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
4. In nutshell the case of the prosecution is as under:-
3& laf{kIr eas vfHk;kstu dgkuh bl izdkj gS fd fnukad 10&12&2011 dh jkf= 10 cts ds yxHkx Qfj;knh vfHk;ksD=h ¼Hkhy½ us viuh ekSlh d`".kkckbZ vkSj ekek ds yM+ds Hk;~;w firk ukjk;.k ds lkFk Fkkuk /kkj eas bl vk'k; dh fjiksVZ fy[kokbZ fd mlds firk jryke dke djrs gS vkSj mldh ekW ?kj ls fnu ds 12 cts ds yxHkx mlds firk ds ikl jryke xbZ Fkh A og rFkk mldh NksVh cgu eksfudk ?kj ds vanj njoktk can djds lks xbZ Fkh] ihNs ds njokts dh lkady FkksMh <+hyh Fkh] ftleas vanj ls gkFk Mkydj njoktk [kksydj muds eksgYys dk fxj/kkjh firk xksfoUn ?kj ds vanj x;k] njoktk [kqyus ls mldh uhan [kqy xbZ rc og njoktk can djds cqjh uh;r ls mldh mij cSB dj vkSj mldh Nkrh nckbZ vkSj mlus dgk fd fpYykuk er ugha rks tku ls ekj nsxk] rc mls eqf'dy ls /kDdk nsdj Hkxk;k vkSj mlds fpYykus ij mldh cgu tkxh vkSj fpYykrh gqbZ og njoktk [kksyus ds fy, nkSMh] rc fxj/kkjh us mls ydMh ls ekjk A blds ckn mldh cgu fpYykus yxh rc mlds ekek dk iq= Hk;~;w vk x;k] ftlus mldk njoktk rksMk o vUnj vk;k rc fxj/kkjh ckgj fudyk o gkFkkikbZ dh mlh le; mldh ekSlh d`".kkckbZ Hkh vk xbZ] rc fxj/kkjh Hk;~;w ls NwVdj Hkkx x;k rRi'pkr~ ;g vijk/k dzekad 875@2011] Hkk0na0fo0 dh /kkjk 456] 354] 323 ,oa vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e 1989 dh /kkjk 3 ¼1½ ¼11½ ds rgr~ iathc) fd;k A ckn vuqla/kku lekfIr i'pkr~ vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr fd;k x;k A
5. Some observations made by the trial Court analyzing the evidence of the prosecution is reproduced hereunder:-
10& vfHk;ksD=h v0lk0&4 ds mDr dFku dh iqf"V d`".kkckbZ v0lk0&5 d`".kk mQZ Hk;~;w v0lk0&6 ds }kjk vius eq[; ijh{k.k eas dh xbZ gS rFkk eksfudk v0lk0&9] tks vfHk;ks=h dh cgu gS mlus vfHk;qDr vkSj d`".kk nksuksa dk >xMk gqvk] ;g ns[kuk crk;k gS] blds vfrfjDr mlds }kjk vkSj dqN ugha crk;k x;kA 11& bl lk{kh dh fjiksVZ iz0ih0&3 eas **vfHk;qDr fxj/kkjh ds }kjk mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k x;k** bl laca/k eas dksbZ mYys[k ugha gS rFkk bl lk{kh ds izfrijh{k.k iSjk 5 eas cykRdkj ds laca/k eas lk{kh ls iwNs tkus ij bl lk{kh us **fy[kk fn;k Fkk** crk;k ysfdu ;g lk{kh iz0ih0&3 dh fjiksVZ eas n'kkZ;s rF;ksa dh iqf"V u djrs gq, U;k;ky; eas vius dFkuksa dks o`f) djds] c<k&p<k dj dFku dj jgh gS A bl lk{kh dks izfrijh{k.k iSjk&10 eas ;g lq>ko fn;k x;k fd **?kVuk okyh jkr larks"k] vfuy vkSj Hk;~;w mQZ d`".kk us jkr djhc lk<s ukS cts fxj/kkjh vius [ksr ls okil vk jgk Fkk rc mlds lkFk rhuksa us ekjihV fd;k Fkk vkSj iSls Nhu fy;s Fks vkSj mldh fjiksVZ fxj/kkjh }kjk jkr dks Fkkuk /kkj eas dh Fkh** rc bl lk{kh us badkj fd;k gS A 12& d`".kk mQZ Hk;~;w v0lk0&6 ds izfrijh{k.k iSjk 2] 4 ,oa 6 eas ;g rF; vk;k gS fd **fxj/kkjh Hkkxus yxk] Hkkxus eas mldk iSj fQly x;k Fkk] bl dkj.k mls pksV vkbZ Fkh ] og lM+d ij fxjk gqvk Fkk vkSj lk{kh igyhckj U;k;ky; esa dFku ns jgk gS ,oa mlus igys ;g ckr ugha crkbZ Fkh rFkk vfHk;qDr fxj/kkjh 'kjkc ih;s gq, Fkk vkSj vfHk;qDr ds }kjk cpko dk dgdj fpYykus ij mlus njoktk ykr ls [kksy fn;k Fkk A bl lk{kh dk ;g Hkh lq>ko fn;k x;k fd muds }kjk ekjihV djus ls fxj/kkjh dh Vkax VwV xbZ Fkh vkSj mlls cpus ds fy, vfHk;ksD=h v0lk0&4 ls feydj mUgksaus ;g >wBh fjiksVZ dh gS] rc bl lk{kh us badkj fd;k gS A bl lk{kh dks ;g Hkh lq>ko fn;k x;k fd ?kVuk ds jkr 11 cts vfHk;qDr fxj/kkjh /kkj vLirky eas HkrhZ Fkk] rc bl lk{kh us mRrj eas crk;k fd og vfHk;ksD=h ds ?kj ij Fkk A
6. Dr.Anita Baghel PW-3 medical officer has also not supported the theory of forcible sexual intercourse upon the person of the prosecutrix. The FSL report also does not substantiate the evidence of rape against the accused persons. The defence evidence also gives probable defence to the case of the respondents that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are also relevant which are reproduced hereunder:-
20& bl izdkj bu nksuks lk{khx.k ds dFkuksa ls ;g rF; izekf.kr gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr fxj/kkjh ds lkFk 9%30 cts ?kVuk ?kfVr gqbZ Fkh vkSj larks"k] vfuy vkSj d`".kk ds fo:) uketn fjiksV dh xbZ Fkh A bl laca/k eas d`".kk mQZ Hk;~;w v0lk0&6 ds izfrijh{k.k ds iSjk 6 eas lq>ko fn;s tkus ij muds }kjk ekjihV djus ij fxj/kkjh dh Vkax VwV xbZ Fkh] rc bl lk{kh us badkj fd;k gS A blh izdkj bl ekeys ls cpus ds fy, mUgksaus vfHk;ksD=h v0lk0&4 ls vfHk;qDrx.kksa ds fo:) >waBh fjiksVZ fy[kkbZ Fkh] bl rF; ls Hkh lk{kh us badkj dj fn;k A 21& bl lk{kh d`".kk mQZ Hk;~;w ds eq[; ijh{k.k eas vfHk;qDr fxj/kkjh 'kjkc ih;s gq, Fkk] ;g crk;k Fkk] fdUrq izn'kZ ih0&3 dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ es vfHk;ksD=h ds }kjk bl izdkj dh dksbZ ckr crkbZ tkuk ugha tkrh gS] rc ;g laHko gS fd larks"k] vfuy vksj d`".kk ds } kjk vfHk;ksD=h ls feydj ;g >wBh fjiksVZ djokbZ xbZ] D;ksafd vfHk;ksD=h ds }kjk izn'kZ ih0&3 dh fjiksVZ fy[kokbZ xbZ] mleas vfHk;qDr jkts'k ds uke dk dgha mYys[k ugha gS vkSj vfHk;qDr fxj/kkjh ds }kjk vfHk;ksD=h ds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k x;k gks] ,slk Hkh dksbZ rF; izn'kZ ih0&3 dh fjiksVZ esa ugha gS A tcfd U;k;ky;hu dFkuksa eas vfHk;ksD=h ds }kjk mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k tkuk crk;k x;k gS] tcfd bl laca/k eas fpfdRld ,oa fo'ks"kK dh fjiksVZ vfHk;ksD=h ds dFkuksa dh iqf"V ugha djrh gS A
7. In view of the aforesaid, learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons. We do not find any infirmity in the approach of the trial Court. Consequently, we dismiss the application.
C.C.as per rules.
( SHANTANU KEMKAR ) ( M. C. GARG )
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/