Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mukesh Yadav @ Pappu Judgement Given By: ... on 4 September, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
M.Cr.C. No.11591/2013
04.09.13
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 20/04/2013 passed by II Additional Judge to the
Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.
620/2011, whereby respondent Mukesh Yadav alias Pappu has
been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9/7/11 at about 11 a.m., prosecutrix, a minor girl had gone to School from her house situated at Sadhna Enclave Bag Sevania. When she did not return till evening, missing person report (Ex.P/10) was lodged by her mother Seema Malviya (PW8) at Police Station Sevania. Her father Buddhram (PW7), on getting information about the prosecutrix, went to Jammu and found the prosecutrix and the respondent there, who were brought to Bhopal on 24/8/11. During investigation, it surfaced that respondent after kidnapping the prosecutrix, had taken her to Jammu and subjected her to rape. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned Deputy 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 Deputy Advocate General, impugned judgment was perused.
After considering the age-related evidence on record, trial Court held that on the date of incident, prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age and had extensively travelled with the respondent at her own accord, and for near about 15 days, had stayed with him at Jammu and despite sufficient opportunity, had not complained to anyone. Her parents Buddharam (PW7) and Seema (PW8) admitted in their cross-examination that prosecutrix had fallen in love with the respondent. That apart, as per her medical report (Ex.P/6) prepared by Dr. Vandana Gaud, prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse and no external or internal injury was found on her body and her secondary sexual characters were well developed. In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that 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)