Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of M.P. vs Pappu @ Bhagwan Singh & Anr. on 20 October, 2015
1 Cr.A. No.1897 of 2000
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE
Cri.A. No.1897/2000
APPELLANT: The State of Madhya Pradesh
Versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. Pappu @ Bhagwan Singh,
Son of Madanlal Sahu,
aged 24 years; Resident of Ucher,
District Raisen (M.P.)
2. Lalaram son of Babulal Nath,
aged 25 years,
Resident of Pipalkheda,
District Raisen (M.P.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.S. Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State. None for the respondents/accused persons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(J U D G M E N T) Delivered on: 20.10.2015 Through this appeal appellant/State of M.P. has assailed the judgment dated 21.01.2000, passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Raisen in Special Case No.49/96, whereby respondents/accused have been acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Sections 363,366,376 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
02. The allegation against the accused is that on 29.08.94 at about 11.10 in the night, they abducted prosecutrix, a minor girl from the lawful guardianship of her mother Shakuntala Bai, while she had gone to answer the call of nature. It is alleged that 2 Cr.A. No.1897 of 2000 prosecutrix was taken to various places, and appellant no.1 Pappu @ Bhagwan Singh committed rape with her. FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged by Shakuntala Bai, mother of the prosecutrix. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and completing the investigation, the police charge sheeted the accused.
03. The accused abjured the guilt hence they were put to trial.
04. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, prosecution has examined six witnesses and exhibited the documents P/1 to P/8. During accused statement they denied all the evidence putforth against them and their defence was of false implication. Defence does not choose to examine any witness.
05. Learned Special Judge, Sagar acquitted the accused from the charge of offence punishable under the aforesaid sections holding that prosecutrix was not minor, and was a consenting party as she lived with the accused for a long time and visited various places with them, but did not raise any alarm. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/State of M.P. has come up in this appeal.
06. Shri R.S. Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court committed grave error in acquitting the accused in aforesaid offence. He further submits that learned trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the evidence of prosecutrix (PW.1). He also submits that statement of Shakuntala Bai (PW.2) mother of prosecutrix was not read in its true spirit. On the aforesaid grounds, learned PL submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial 3 Cr.A. No.1897 of 2000 Court suffers with surmises and conjectures, therefore, it may be set aside.
07. None appeared on behalf of the accused though served.
08. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/State at length, perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered by the prosecution; and the impugned judgment. After reflecting over the matter, I am implicitly satisfied that on merits, the judgment of acquittal of the accused persons warrants no interference.
09. Learned trial Court after elaborate scrutiny of depositions of the prosecutrix (PW/1) and her mother Sakuntala Bai (PW/2) coupled with statements of Dr. Usha Nigam (PW/3) who examined the prosecutrix and Radiologist Dr. Kushwaha (PW/4) and ingredients of X-ray report in Para 6 to 8 of the impugned judgment rightly held that there is sufficient evidence on the record to hold that the age of the prosecutrix (PW/1) was more than 18 years on the date of the incident.
10. When the age of the prosecutrix is found to be more than 18 years, learned trial Court has to consider the question whether it was a case of consent or the alleged act of rape was committed by the respondent with the prosecutrix contrary to her wish and will and, accordingly, the Court has to decide the matter. Learned trial Court in light of above facts and circumstances rightly scrutinized the depositions of the prosecutrix (PW/1) and found that the major prosecutrix (PW/1) was the consenting party. 4 Cr.A. No.1897 of 2000
11. The prosecutrix (PW/1) in her depositions categorically admitted that after her abduction she was taken by the respondents to Bhopal where they stayed in a lodge. The prosecutrix (PW/1) also admitted that at Bhopal they hired auto riksha to reach lodge. It is also submitted by the prosecutrix that at the time of registration she herself mentioned her false name Hemlata.
12. At Bhopal they have visited Bada Talab (tank) and park, also visited one Dhaba for meals. Purchasing of clothes and chappal from open market and payment were made by the respondent Bhagwan Singh also admitted by the prosecutrix (PW/1). Even after visiting these crowded public places and having ample opportunity to complaint to any other person including policeman or raised alarm for rescue or to run away from the clutches of the respondent, she did not opt any one of these courses, which go to show that the major prosecutrix (PW/1) was consenting party. She also admitted involvement of her mother and other women family members in illegal activities. Evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) herself suffers from material infirmities, her deposition appears to be a exaggerated version, hence cannot be accepted.
13. The prosecution did not adduce any evidence to the effect that the accused persons, particularly accused Pappu @ Bhagwan Das committed offence knowing the prosecutirx being a member of Scheduled Tribes.
5 Cr.A. No.1897 of 2000
14. Beside the aforesaid, on going through the depositions of other witnesses there is no material to incriminating the applicant with the alleged offence.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant/State could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. It is a well settled principle of law that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in an appeal against acquittal is not called for.
16. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion of acquittal of the accused. The present appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The accused are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.
17. Learned trial Court be intimated forthwith.
Appeal dismissed.
(Subhash Kakade) Judge Jk/ak