The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhagirath

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on I.A. No. 18014/12 for condonation of delay in preferring this application for leave to file appeal. As per Office note, the application is barred by 50 days.

Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A. is allowed and delay in filing the application is hereby condoned.

Heard on admission.

This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 26/3/2012 passed by XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 478/2010, whereby respondent no. 1 Bhagirath has been acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), whereas respondent no. 2 Chhotu has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the IPC.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched with respondent no. 1 Bhagirath, on 17/2/10 respondent no. 2 Chhotu not only kidnapped the prosecutrix under a false promise to marry, but also took her to various places and subjected her to sexual assault. On 18/2/10, missing person report was lodged in respect of the prosecutrix by her brother-in-law Mukesh at Police Station Piplani, and during investigation the said facts had come to light. Accordingly, on 19/2/10 Crime No. 135/10 was registered and charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class showing Chhotu as absconding, who was later apprehended on 30/8/10.

Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.

After considering the entire age-related evidence on record, trial Court in para 21 of the impugned judgment found that prosecution had failed to prove that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age. Prosecutrix (PW1) deposed that, under false assurance of marriage, respondents had taken her to Sagar where they kept her in a Lodge for a night and then to the house of the sister of respondent Chhotu at Chandora, where Chhotu subjected her to sexual assault for a period of 4-5 days. She categorically deposed that she had gone with Chhotu as he had promised to marry and had returned only on his denial. She admitted that she had told her sister that she was going with Chhotu. In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that prosecutrix was a consenting party and that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.

It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.

Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view. As such, no interference is called for with the judgment of acquittal in question. The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.