Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Hariram Lodhi Judgement Given By: ... on 20 September, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
M.Cr.C. No.7445/2013
20.9.13
Per B.D.Rathi,J
Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Government Advocate 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 2.3.2013 passed by the Special Sessions Judge
(under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act")), Tikamgarh in Sessions
Trial No.26/2011, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the
offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Act') and Section 3(2)(5) of the Act.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23/5/11 at about 12 noon, near the nursery of Forest Department at Village Nadiya, respondent subjected the prosecutrix, a married lady aged about 32 years and a member of scheduled tribe, to rape. Report (Ex.P/1) of the incident was lodged the next day upon which Crime was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be set-aside.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.
Material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations were found in the evidence of the prosecutrix vis-à-vis her police statement (Ex.D/1) and the First Information Report recorded at her instance, as well as, in the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. In paragraph 7 & 10 of her evidence, prosecutrix deposed that she did not know the respondent from before and was seeing him for the first time in the Court after the incident. She also deposed that boys who were working 1-2 kilometers away from the spot had told her the name of the respondent. Trial Court found it quite unnatural that someone that away from the spot would know the name of the miscreant. Further, the said boys were not examined by the prosecution. Trial Court in para 22 found that though prosecutrix had deposed that she had suffered several injuries, yet, as per medical evidence only two abrasions were found on her back, which could have been caused while performing daily chores. In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found 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 for grant of leave to file appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)