Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ganesh Prasad on 27 June, 2014
M.Cr.C. No.12844/2013
27.06.2014
As per : N.K. Gupta, J.
Shri S.K. Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant/State.
Heard on admission.
The State has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 8.5.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anuppur in S.T. No.139/2011, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 302, 201 and 506(part-II) of the IPC.
The prosecution's case in short is that on 21.5.2011 the prosecutrix (PW-3) went from village Karoundi to Bilaspur to attend a marriage ceremony arranged in the house of Parasram, who was her brother-in-law. The respondent who was son-in-law of real sister of the prosecutrix also visited in the marriage. On 25.5.2011 the respondent took the prosecutrix and her husband on his tractor to drop them at village Khajurwar. At that time, wife of the respondent was in her parents house. In the way, the respondent took the deceased Darbari Lal husband of the prosecutrix to consume some liquor. The respondent also gave some liquor to the prosecutrix (PW-
3). At about 4:00 p.m. in the evening, when the prosecutrix and her husband started leaving for their village Karoundi then, the respondent told that he had a date to attend the Court at Dindori on 25.6.2011 and therefore, he would stay in the house of the prosecutrix and her husband. Thereafter, they left Khajurwar to go village Karoundi. In the way, the respondent committed rape upon the prosecutrix. On her shouting, her husband Darbari came to the spot and therefore, a scuffling was started. Thereafter, the prosecutrix tried to save her husband but the respondent killed the deceased Darbari by throttling and threatened the prosecutrix to say that the deceased died due to hanging. Thereafter, the prosecutrix (PW-3) told various villagers who reached to the spot that her husband committed suicide. On investigation, it was found that the respondent committed rape upon the prosecutrix and also killed the deceased Darbari. After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
After considering the submissions made by learned Government Advocate and considering the evidence given by various prosecution witnesses, it would be apparent that the prosecutrix (PW-3) has turned hostile before the Court that no rape was committed upon her and her husband committed suicide by hanging on a tree. Sukh Sen (PW-1), Fislu Singh (PW-6) Janki (PW-10) etc. have stated that the prosecutrix told them that her husband committed suicide and he was hanging. It is true that Dr. Surendra Singh (PW-13) in his autopsy report found that the death of the deceased Darbari was homicidal in nature.
Sole eyewitness i.e. the prosecutrix (PW-3) has turned hostile. When she has stated that no rape was committed upon her then, the respondent could not be convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. If the respondent did not try to commit rape upon the prosecutrix then, there was no need to the deceased to make any obstruction against the respondent or there was no any reason so that a quarrel would have started. It is found that the prosecutrix and her husband left the village Khajurwar alongwith the respondent and therefore, the fact of last seen is established by the witness Rajaram (PW-5). It is true that the deceased died due to throttling but by only these two circumstances, it cannot be said that the crime of murder was committed by the respondent. The chain of circumstantial evidence is broken. It cannot be said that the respondent killed the deceased Darbari or thereafter hanged his dead body on a tree. The benefit of doubt is to be given to the respondent and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
The theory of threatening is not corroborated by the prosecutrix in her statement before the trial Court and therefore, the respondent could not be convicted for the offence under Section 506 (part-II) of the IPC.
On the basis of aforesaid discussion, there is no reason to grant leave to appeal. Consequently, the leave application filed by the State is hereby dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information alongwith its record.
(Ajit Singh) (N.K. Gupta)
Judge Judge
pnkj