The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Sonu @ Rajpal Lodhi

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) against the acquittal of respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of the IPC. The corresponding judgment was passed by II Additional Session Judge, Khurai District Sagar in S.T. No. 729/2010 on 30.12.2011.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that during the period 14.9.2010 to 18.9.2010, the respondent not only subjected the prosecutrix to rape but also strangulated her to death and for the purpose of causing disappearance of the corresponding evidence, threw her dead body in Jhinna Nala and concealed her underwear in a pit near the Nala. Upon the report of Nannu, Morgue No. 7/10 (Ex.P/2) and First Information Report (Ex.P/16) were registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned Government Advocate submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, record of the trial Court was perused.

Entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence and to complete the chain, prosecution examined Sujan (PW5), Chaturbhuj (PW6) and Shantibai (PW8), who deposed that the respondent was seen at the spot, but in the cross-examination, they admitted that they had stated so on tutoring of the Government Advocate. That apart, there is public way through the spot. An underwear of the deceased was allegedly seized at the instance of the respondent, but there is no corresponding identification to prove that it belonged to the deceased. Respondent was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/11) immediately after the incident, and therefore, version of the prosecution that he had absconded, was not credible. Somvati (PW9) and Kallo (PW10) deposed that deceased was along with them, while going to the school, and the deceased had gone to answer the call of nature by the side of Nala all alone, where general public also goes. In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete and the 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 appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.