The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Vijay Singh

B.D. Rathi, J.—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 10/01/2012 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act")) at Hoshangabad in Special Case No. 147/10, whereby respondent namely Vijay Singh has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 458 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and 3(2)(v) of the Act.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19/11/10 between 1 to 1.30 a.m., when the prosecutrix, along with her grandchildren Vikas, Shivani and Shubhani, was asleep in her house and her husband was not present having been gone to Seonimalwa, respondent trespassed into her house and sat on her chest due to which she came out of her slumber. As she tried to shriek, respondent pressed her mouth and subjected her to rape and upon her attempt to extricate herself from his clutches, he twisted her hand and threatened to kill her on the point of a knife. After committing the offence, when the respondent was about to leave, she raised alarm, upon which Vikas (PW2) awoke and saw the respondent fleeing. Hearing her screams, Bajulal (PW7) and Ramesh (PW5), neighbours came on the spot and remained with the prosecutrix for the entire night. Next day morning when her husband Bhujram (PW4) came, the prosecutrix apprised her of the incident and went with him to lodge the report. Upon the said information, First Information Report (Ex.P/1) leading to registration of Crime No. 241/10 was recorded, and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

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.

According to the prosecutrix (PW1), upon her screams, her grandchild Vikas had awakened, who had seen the respondent sitting on her chest. She further deposed that during the incident her husband Bhujram (PW4) was not at home. Dr. Richa Yadav (PW3), who examined the prosecutrix, deposed that prosecutrix had not apprised her of rape and instead, had told her that there had been a quarrel with someone. The doctor did not confirm commission of offence and found the prosecutrix, who was a mother of four children, habitual of sexual intercourse. As regards the abrasions found on her forearm, the doctor deposed that the same could be caused while doing household chores. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix deposed that she was not aware that how the respondent had removed her and his clothes as she was asleep and that her grand child had awakened prior to her and had seen the respondent sitting on her chest. In the aforesaid circumstances, the trial Court found that prosecutrix was a consenting party and that 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 application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.