State of M.P. vs Sonu Alias Shishupal

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 19.8.2013 u/s 363, 366(Ka) and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karera District Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2012.

Perused the impugned judgment and record.

The admitted fact of the case is that the accused/petitioner was arrested by O.P. Mishra Sub Inspector (PW8) vide panchnama Ex.P/12.

The case of prosecution in brief, is that the complainant Narayandas along with his family was residing in a rented house of Tila Wale situated at Mandi Road, Karera. On 18.11.2011 at about 10 AM he was informed by his wife on telephone about absence of his daughter prosecutrix while he was at Jhansi in connection with some marriage of near relation. On the same day, he went to the police station Karera and lodged missing report of his daughter. Thereafter, on the basis of suspicion, police interrogated accused/respondent Shripat in which, he disclosed to have induced the prosecutrix and took her with him. Thereafter, on the report of complainant Narayandas, FIR was registered against accused/respondent at Crime No. 575 of 2011 for offences punishable u/s 363 and 366Ka of IPC. The matter was taken into investigation and during investigation, prosecutrix was recovered vide Ex.P/1 and she disclosed that on the alleged night of incident, she was forcibly taken by the accused with him who committed rape with her, hence, the offence punishable u/s 376 was added. The matter was further investigated by sending the prosecutrix for medical examination and recording the statements of witnesses 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 Sonu alias Shishupal u/s 363, 366(Ka) and 376(1) of IPC. Statements of eight 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 statements of eight witnesses were got recorded by the prosecution. The prosecutrix (PW1) has stated her date of birth to be 20.10.1994 which has been corroborated by her High School Mark sheet Ex.P/3. On the basis of said date of birth, her age was between 17 to 18 years at the time of the occurrence of the incident I.e. 11.11.2011. She has passed High School examination in 2011. These said facts clearly show that she was mature enough at the time of the incident.

As per the story of the prosecution, the prosecutrix (PW1) has deposed in her statement in paras 1 to 5 that when she stepped out of her house in the night, the accused was already standing there and took her away forcibly having gagged her mouth. Thereafter, he took her from one place to another halting at several places and during stay, she was rapped by him. In para 11 of her statement, she had admitted that she went to Guna from Karera by bus wherein, 50-60 fellow passengers were sitting and she did not say anything to any one about what had happened to her. Further, in para 14 and 15, she has stated that she went from Guna to Datia along with accused by bus and this journey took three to four hours. From there she visited Ratangarth Temple. Then after she having traveled 20 hours journey, reached from Datia to Jaipur. In para 17 of her statement, she further admitted that she has stayed in a hotel with the accused where, she was rapped by the accused. In para 24 and 25 of her statement, she has further admitted that wherever, they visited together, the accused introduced her to people as his wife. As per her statement, she spent almost one and half months with accused at several places and remained silent about the said allegations during this period. The aforesaid facts and circumstances lead to the conclusion that the prosecutrix herself left her home with the accused and she was consenting party in the case. Though the age of prosecutrix (PW1) had been more than 17 years and below 18 years at the time of incident yet it can not be inferred that she was abducted or kidnapped by the accused looking to the judgment of S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras, of the impugned judgment.

Therefore, the learned trial Court having considered the evidence seems to have made no mistake in acquitting the accused. No sufficient ground has been found to grant leave to file appeal. This application for leave to file appeal is accordingly dismissed.