Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This criminal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/complainant/prosecutrix being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned 1 st Upper Sessions Judge (Presiding Officer), Ashta, District Sehore, in Criminal Appeal No.317/2016 reversing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.639/2015 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashta, Sehore whereby the respondent No.1-Santosh Verma (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') had been convicted under Sections 456 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations.

3. The trial Court framed charges against the accused under Sections 456, 354 and 506 Part-II of IPC. Upon conclusion of the trial vide impugned judgment dated 24.11.2016, the learned trial Court although acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 506 Party-II of IPC but convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment.

4. An appeal against the judgment passed by the learned trial Court/Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashta, District Sehore, has been filed before the learned lower appellate Court, which in turn, vide the impugned judgment dated 16.02.2017 reversed the finding of the learned trial Court/JMFC by acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecutrix (PW-1), prosecutrix's sister-in-law/Nanad (PW-2) and prosecutrix's brother-in-law/Jeth (PW-3), remained unshaken in their testimonies. They supported the story of prosecution in toto and since their NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32644 3 CRA-2639-2017 testimony has been found to be cogent and reliable by the learned trial Court, therefore, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC but the learned lower appellate Court has erroneously acquitted the accused on flimsy grounds. The FIR in this case categorically established in light of the statement of the prosecutrix and there is no ground doubt it. The fact of previous rivalry does not belie the statement of these witnesses. Therefore, it is prayed that the present appeal be allowed, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned lower appellate Court be set aside and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court be restored.

7. Heard rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record meticulously.

8. The learned trial Court has convicted the respondent/accused under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC but the learned lower appellate Court by the impugned judgment reversed the finding and acquitted the accused from the said offences on the ground that the FIR in this case is suspicious. Moreover, there is no independent corroboration to the statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. Keeping in view the factum of previous rivalry between the parties after analyzing the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, they are not found to be cogent and reliable. Though all these three witnesses have supported the story of prosecution in their chief-examinations but there are material contradictions and variations qua the story of prosecution in their statements.