The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Manoj Patel

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on admission. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code" for short). By the impugned judgment, respondent no. 1 has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(1) and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"), respondent no. 2 of the offence u/s 376(2)(g) of the IPC and respondent no. 3 of the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 read with 109 of the IPC. The impugned judgment dated 27/4/2013 was passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in Sessions Trial No. 319/11.

As per the prosecution story, on 3/6/11, at about 2 p.m., a missing report no. 9/11 was lodged by Ramadhar Patel in respect of his daughter viz. the prosecutrix, aged about 15 years. During investigation into Crime No. 150/11 so registered, it surfaced that Manoj with the assistance of his mother-in-law Ramkali Patel, wife Nisha alias Anita and Kiran Kol induced the prosecutrix to come to Mumbai and escorted her from Shuklgawan till Mumbai, where he confined her in a room for four days and during this period persistently subjected her to sexual assault. Thereafter, he called his friend Mahesh Vishwkarma and asked him to marry the prosecutrix. Mahesh also subjected the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse on a false promise to marry. After a month, when she asked Manoj to send her home, he brought her to Rewa, where on 27/8/11, she was recovered form his possession. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment.

It was held by the trial Court that as per the ossification report, prosecutrix was a major. In para 18 of the judgment, it was also held by the trial Court that the prosecutrix extensively travelled with the respondent to various places including Mumbai and Delhi, and the entire duration of her stay with the respondent was of more than three months. This conduct of the prosecutrix, itself reveals, that she was a consenting party and was accompanying the respondent on her own accord.

On perusal of the impugned judgment together with the statements of the witnesses, we agree with the view taken 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 order of acquittal in question. The application, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.