State Of Madhya pradesh vs Dalu @ Ramkumar Patel

This is an application under Section 378(III) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to appeal against the judgement of acquittal

passed by the Special Judge under POCSO Act, Damoh in Special Sessions Trial No.24/15 pronounced on 29/06/2016, whereby the

accused/respondent has been acquitted from the charges punishable under Section 363,366-A, of IPC and under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act in

alternate under Section 3762(n) of IPC.Â

According to prosecution, on 02/03/2013 respondent/ accused took prosecutrix (PW-6) from the guardianship of her parents and kept her in

Chhattarpur, Mathura and District Hissar and committed rape upon her reguarly. On her missing on 03/03/2013 a missing report was registered.Â

During her stay with respondent she gave birth to two children. Later on, on 01/04/2015 she was recovered from the possession of the respondent

at Patel Nagar, Hissar Haryana. Thereafter, after completing investigation charge sheet was filed.

After filing charge sheet case was committed to Trial Court and then Trial Court levelled charges punishable under Section 363,366-A of IPC and

under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and in alternate under Section 376-2(n) of IPC against the respondent/accused, who abjured the guilt. The Trial

Court, after considering the plea of the accused/respondent disbelieved the testimony of witnesses of the prosecution and acquitted the

accused/respondent.

Learned Government Advocate Shri Sudeep Deb submits that impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is wholly erroneous in law as

well as on facts. Learned Trial Court committed grave error in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations without appreciating the

material available on record in its true perspective.Â

Prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. , Smt. Seema Patel (PW-1), who is mother of the prosecutrix and Awadh Bihari Patel(PW-4),

who is father of the prosecutrix have stated that their daughter (prosecutrix) went to school but did not return and thereafter missing report was

lodged. Smt. Seema Patel (PW-1) has stated that later on she came to know that respondent/accused took her daughter with him to Hissar. Father of

prosecutrix has stated that her daughter went with her friend(saheli) to Haryana and lived there for two years. He has stated that she was not

with the respondent. Ins pite of these evidence, prosecutrix who is an important witness has herself stated that due to some disputes she became

angry with her father and went to Hissar with her friend (Saheli) and after living there for two years she came back with her friend. She has

further stated that at Hissar she worked as a Labourer. She has further stated that when she came back to her village, she came to know that her

father has lodged a report in police station and then she went to police station with her father. She has been declared hostile. She has been cross

examined at length by the prosecution but nothing has come in support of the prosecution. In her cross examination, done by the defence, she has

admitted that respondent-accused did not take her to any place and he did not do anything wrong with her. She has further stated that she has given

statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C under pressure and suggession of police. She has not supported the case of prosecution and has not stated

anything against the respondent/accused in support of any charge levelled against him.

On the basis of statements of above witnesses and other evidence available on record, we are of the view that charges levelled against the

accused/respondent are not proved. Accordingly, the Trial Court has rightly concluded that charges levelled against the accused/respondent

punishable under Section 363,366-A, of IPC and under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and in alternate under Section 376-2(n) of IPC have not been

proved, which is totally based on evidence available on record and as per law.

It is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence. There is no

limitation, restriction or condition for the exercise of such powers and the appellate Court may draw its own conclusion on all questions of facts and

law. However, the reversal of acquittal can be made only if the conclusions recorded by the trial Court did not reflect a possible view, that is to say a

view which can reasonably be arrived at. In the case of acquittal, the judgment of the trial Court should be interfered with only where there is absolute

assurance of guilt of the accused/respondent on the basis of evidence on record and not merely because the appellate Court can take another possible

or a different view.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Kali Ram Vs.State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773, has held as under:

“Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the

evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused

should be adopted.  This principle has a special relvance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial

evidence.

In the aforesaid circumstances, in the opinion of this court, learned trial Court has considered the entire material evidence against accused/respondent

on record in its entirety and on proper appreciation of evidence, after assigning detailed and cogent reasons, has acquitted the accused/respondent.Â

Unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in a case against acquittal, is not called for. In catena of

judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the evaluation of the evidence by the trial Court does not suffer from illegality, manifest error or

perversity and the main grounds on which it has based its order are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal

even if another view is possible.

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal against acquittal of the accused/respondent deserves to be and is hereby, dismissed in limine at the

stage of admission itself.