Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bindu @ Surendra Baiga on 2 February, 2016
M.Cr. C. 13569/2015
02.02.2016
Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Shri P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard.
By filing this M.Cr.C. under Section 378(III) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant/State is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 1.12.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur in Sessions Trial No. 98/2014, acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Before the trial Court, the prosecutrix (PW2), her mother Agasiya Bai (PW1), the brother of prosecutrix Raju Agaria (PW3), Smt. Premvati Agaria (PW4), Jwala Prasad Agaria (PW5) did not support the prosecution case. The prosecutrix in her deposition had stated that she does not know the respondent/accused and he never took her to on a motorcycle and has not committed any offence with her. The prosecution witness Raju had stated that as the prosecutrix was missing, a report was lodged to that effect. Thus, there is no evidence to implicate the respondent for commission of the alleged offence as the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. In the circumstances, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences as alleged.
Having considered the evidence available on record and the impugned judgment, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere into the impugned judgment of acquittal.
As a result, M.Cr.C. seeking leave to appeal is rejected.
(Shantanu Kemkar) Judge AD/