State of M.P. vs Sanman Singh

Heard the application for leave to appeal. This is an application u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the Petitioner/state seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.7.2013 u/s 457 and 376 /511 of IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC ST Act passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court SC ST (Prevention) of Atrocities Act in Special Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2013.

Perused the impugned judgment and record.

The admitted fact of the case is that accused Sanman Singh belongs to Dangi community and prosecutrix belonged to Ahirwar caste.

The case of prosecution in brief, is that on 31.1.2012 the prosecutrix lodged a written report at PS Gulab Ganj District Vidisha to the effect that her husband went to her parental house on 30.1.2012 and at about 12 in the night while she was sleeping in her house, accused-respondent Sanman Singh entered her house and overpowering her tried to rape with her. She tried to rescue herself but in the scuffle, she was thrown on the earth, due to which, she suffered injury in her waist. Thereafter, on her raising alarm her mother in law and father in law got awakened and accused ran away. On her report, FIR Ex.P/1 was recorded at Crime No. 21 of 2012 u/s 376 /511, 456 and 323 of IPC and 3(1)(xii) of the SC ST Act. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. During investigation, the accused was arrested and statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court of JMFC from where, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the charges were framed against respondent accused u/s 457 and 376 /511 of IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC ST Act. During trial statements of seven witnesses were got recorded on behalf of the prosecution. By the impugned judgment, the accused were acquitted as stated herein above.

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

The prosecution has got the statements of seven witnesses recorded. As per prosecution story, the prosecutrix (PW1) has deposed in her statement. As per her statement, when she was sleeping in her hut, the accused entered it and tried to rape her but she kicked him owing to which, he fell on the floor. Further when the prosecutrix cried, her in-laws sleeping out side the hut at once came there then the accused fled away. It has come on record in para 16 of her statement in which, she has admitted that she did not disclose the said incident to her in-laws or any one else in the very night. Next day morning, when her husband returned from her maternal house, she only narrated to him what had happened to her on the said night. In para 6 of the statement of (PW1), it has come on record that the prosecutrix has not seen the house of the accused.

Moreover, in this case, no witness has come forward corroborating the fact that the accused was the prosecutrix''s neighbour. Further, even no witness is there, who has seen the accused making entry and exit in the prosecutrix''s house. In paras 7,13 and 14 of the statement of (PW1), it has further candidly come on record that there had been litigation between the accused and her husband regarding land before the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 30.1.2012. From the said facts and circumstances, it appears that the whole story on the part of the prosecutrix is doubtful as there is sufficient ground behind the allegation that the said litigation was pending.

Thus, in view of the facts and evidence recorded, it is inferred that the learned trial Court has not made any mistake in acquitting the accused and no cogent grounds have been found for any interference in the impugned judgment. This application for leave to file appeal is accordingly dismissed.