The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Babloo

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on admission. The State has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 21.2.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short ''Special Act''), Bhopal in special case No. 20/2011, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable u/s 452, 506(B), 354 of IPC and section 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act.

The prosecution''s case, in short, is that, on 2.1.2011, the respondent entered in the house of the prosecutrix, situated at Hariom Basti, Gandhinagar, District Bhopal and inserted his hand in the blouse of the prosecutrix and pressed her breasts. On her shouting, the respondent abused her on the basis of her caste and threatened her that if she inform the incident to anyone then, she would be killed. She was also threatened to vacate the house. A written complaint was sent by the prosecutrix to the higher authorities and therefore, a case was registered on 2.2.2011.

The learned Special Judge, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid charges.

After considering the submissions made by the learned G.A., it appears that the written complaint sent by the prosecutrix was delayed by 16 days. According to the document, Ex. P/6 the complaint was made on 17.1.2011, whereas the incident took place on 2.1.2011. In defence, Smt. Sunita (D.W. 1) was examined, who proved the complaints Ex. D/2, Ex. D/3 and Ex. D/4 filed by various citizens of the locality against the prosecutrix to show that she was a quarrelsome woman and she was making complaints on the basis of the caste unnecessarily. If the evidence given by the prosecutrix (P.W. 1), her husband Pirulal (P.W. 2) and her son Dinesh (P.W. 3) is considered then, the prosecutrix and her husband alleged against the respondent that he undressed the prosecutrix. Though they did not allege that the respondent inserted his hand in the blouse of the prosecutrix and pressed her breasts, whereas Dinesh has stated that the respondent raised Petticoat of the prosecutrix. Looking to the material contradictions in the statements of these 3 witnesses and great contradiction between statements of these witnesses and FIR, it would be apparent that the prosecutrix was disbelievable. No incident took place with the prosecutrix otherwise, there must be some similarity in the allegations made in the FIR and statements given by the prosecutrix. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid charges.

There is no ground by which the appeal of the State can be accepted. Consequently, there is no reason to grant leave to file appeal. Under such circumstances, leave to appeal is hereby refused. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.