Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Imran Khan Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 16 September, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
M.Cr.C. No.16/2013.
16.09.13
Per B.D.Rathi,J
Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the
applicant-State.
Heard on I.A. No. 17/13 for condonation of delay in
preferring this application for leave to file appeal.
As per Office note, the application is barred by 101
days.
Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A. is
allowed and delay in filing the application is hereby
condoned.
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 15/06/2012 passed by
the Additional Judge to the Court of XIII Additional Session
Judge, Bhopal in Session Trial No. 99/2012, whereby
respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22/10/2011 respondent took the prosecutrix to his house and subjected her to rape and threatened to kill her, in case she disclosed the incident to anyone. He also give assurance to marry. Report of the incident was lodged 16/12/2011 at Police Station Bajariya. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the accused.
Learned Deputy Advocate General argued that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to the interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate and record of the trial Court was perused.
After taking into consideration the evidence of Prosecutrix PW.1, Toufiq Jahan PW. 2, Manohar Lal PW. 3 and Naseema DW.1, it was held by the trial court that prosecutrix who was more than 18 years of age was a consenting party and there was no evidence at all against the respondents. In the aforesaid premises judgment of acquittal was passed by the trial court.
After going through the entire evidence, we also agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
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)