Shiv Lal vs State on 12 September, 2016
3. Heard the arguments advanced, learned counsel
for the appellant-accused has vehemently contended
that the learned trial court has committed error in
passing the impugned judgment because the evidence
has not been properly appreciated. Accused-appellant
3
and his wife were not having good relations and the
complainant wife was living in her parental house after
abandoning the house of the appellant, relations
between accused and his complainant wife were bitter
and all four kids were residing with her husband-father
Shivlal and the complainant was adamant to procure
the custody of the kids in any manner and acting upon
that machination, false FIR was lodged after instigating
minor daughter. Appellant-accused was undergoing
treatment after major surgery of his spinal cord and
was not in a position to cohabit, so allegations of
alleged rape are concocted and false. There are vital
contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution and
prosecution has not been able to prove its case. Relying
upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in
case of Phool Chand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
2014, Cri.L.J.4789, Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State, 2011
Cr.L.r. (SC) 901, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Keshar
Singh, 2015(4) RLW 2869 (SC), Krishan Kumar Malik
vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130,
K.Venkateshwarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012)
8 SCC 73 and Rahim Beg & Anr. vs. State of U.P.,
(1972) 3 SCC 759, learned counsel has contended that
false FIR was lodged, in order to create pressure to
4
procure the kids and it has got no substance of truth
so, the accused-appellant is liable to be acquitted, in
the end, learned counsel has contended in alternate
that learned trial Court has passed sentence of life
imprisonment, which is not at all just because the
appellant is a sick person and he is to look after his
family and there is no reason to keep the appellant
behind the bars for whole of his life.