The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Pappu @ Anil

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on IA. No. 12559/2011, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present application. In the present case, the application for grant of leave to appeal is filed with delay of 58 days.

Looking to the grounds mentioned in the application, the delay caused in filing the application is hereby condoned.

Heard on admission.

The State has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Betul whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of Sections 342, 354 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act").

The prosecution''s case in short is that on 11.7.2010 at about 3.00 p.m. the prosecutrix (PW1) was going to a Gutka shop from her father''s field at Village Loharia (Police Station Betul Bazaar, District Betul). Near the field of Pappu Pawar the respondent held her hand and took her into a room. He tried to remove the clothes of the prosecutrix and therefore, her kurta was torn. On her shouting, her mother Sugrati (PW3), her aunt Bunda Bai (PW5) etc. who, were working in the sugarcane badi of Ashok Parihar rushed to the spot and saved the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken to the field of Ashok and she told the entire story to her father. Father of the prosecutrix went to the spot and assaulted the respondent by a stick on his back. An FIR Ex. P/1 was lodged and offence was registered.

After considering the submissions made by the learned Panel Lawyer for the State and considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court, it would be apparent that there was lot of contradictions between the statements of the prosecutrix (PW1), Sugrati Bai (PW3) and Bunda Bai (PW5). It was however admitted by Sugrati Bai that there was a dispute between the parties and the respondent could be falsely implicated due to enmity. It was also admitted that in the adjacent house of Manohar some work of construction was going on and Mannu Gond, Gangaram Munim and one mason were present in the house but, no independent witness was produced by the prosecution in the prosecution''s case. In the FIR it was said that Sugrati Bai and Bunda Bai were working in the sugarcane badi of Ashok Ahirwar whereas, in the statement of these witnesses before the trial Court they said that they went to collect Soyabean in the field of someone else. If it was so, then Sugrati Bai and Bunda Bai could not come to the spot which was adjacent to the field of Ashok Ahirwar. Similarly, the prosecutrix had stated that her dress was torn by the respondent, when he dragged her inside the room. No injury relating to dragging was found. If she shouted and her mother and aunt immediately came to the spot then the respondent did not have any opportunity to tear the dress of the prosecutrix. Under such circumstances, the learned Special Judge has rightly disbelieved the testimony of the prosecutrix and the witnesses.

The witness Sugrati Bai, mother of the prosecutrix, has admitted that before giving her statement in the Court she went to Shri Pal, Advocate and thereafter, she was advised that on her deposition she would get a compensation in favour of her daughter. Under such circumstances, looking to the material contradictions between the statements of the witnesses and dispute between the parties, the case was not proved beyond doubt and therefore, if doubt was created then benefit of doubt was to be given to the accused.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, if leave is granted then appeal filed by the State cannot succeed. Under such circumstances, it is not a case in which leave may be granted.

Consequently, the application for grant of leave is hereby dismissed at motion stage. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.