Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Avdesh Prasad Gupta on 13 August, 2012
Cr. Appeal No.1631/2012
13.08.2012 Shri Yogesh Dhande, Counsel for the applicant.
Heard on Admission.
The State has preferred this appeal against the
judgment dated 29.1.2010, passed by the Special
Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Shahdol in
Special Case No.28/09, whereby the respondent
was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under sections 354 and 506 (Part-II) of I.P.C. and under Section 3 (1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be mentioned as "Special Act")
2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 8.7.2008, at about 10.30 pm, in the night, the prosecutrix (PW-3) went with one Kamla Bai to fetch some spices from the shop of Ram Sajivan in village Tali, Police Station Jaisingh Nagar District Shahdol. Thereafter, Kamla Bai took the prosecutrix to her house and thereafter, she said that the prosecutrix can stay in the house of Kamla Bai and she may go in the morning. Thereafter, the respondent took her in her house. He hold the right hand of the prosecutrix and tried to snatch her towards his house. On her shouting, her mother came to the spot and thereafter, the respondent left her. The prosecutrix lodged an FIR at Police Station Jaisingh Nagar. She was directed for her medico legal examination. After due investigation, a charge- sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaisingh Nagar, who committed the case to the Special Court under under the Special Act.
3. The respondent abjured his guilt. He took a specific plea that the prosecutrix had illicit relations with one Sudama and mother of the prosecutrix started quarrel in the shop of the respondent and when the mother of the prosecutrix was directed not to create a scene before the shop of the respondent, she had lodged a false FIR against the respondent. In defence C.L.Dhurve (DW-2) and Dashodiya Bai (DW-4) were examined.
4. After considering the prosecution's evidence, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid charges.
5. After considering the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor for the State, it appears that no FIR was lodged soon after the incident. The alleged FIR was lodged after a week when another incident took place with the parents of the prosecutrix. There is no cogent reason as to why the FIR was not lodged soon after the incident. Under such circumstances, it appears that either the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the incident which was committed by the respondent or a false case has been lodged against the respondent. In both the situations, the respondent cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1) (xi) of the Special Act or offence under Section 506 of I.P.C. Under such circumstances, the appeal appears to be not acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at the motion stage.
6. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court with it's record for information.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pb