Vimla Patel vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred u/s 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 12.7.2013 passed by XV Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 145/13, whereby respondent no. 2 Pankaj Kevat has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 365, 366 and 376(1) of the of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and respondent no. 3 Virendra Dohar has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 366 read with 368 of the IPC.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that during the period 24/12/2012 to 4/1/13, under a false promise to marry, as well as, threat to kill her parents, respondent no. 2 persistently subjected the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse at various places viz. near Railway Station Jabalpur, at the house of respondent no. 3 Virendra situated at a Village near Jaitwara, Teonthar where he also forcibly took her signatures on a Rs. 50/- Stamp Paper and at his sister''s house in Jaitwara and, ultimately, on 4/1/13 her father, searching for her, reached Jaitwara and brought her back. First Information Report (for short "FIR") was registered at the instance of the prosecutrix at Police Station, Panagar and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, we have gone through the judgment and record of the trial Court.

Prosecutrix was the student of B.Com. First Year and, admittedly, was 19 year old. In all the relevant documents like FIR, Morgue Intimation and statement u/s 161 of the Code, age of prosecutrix was mentioned as 19 years. From the evidence on record, it is well established that the prosecutrix, extensively travelled with respondent no. 2, without raising any objection despite having sufficient opportunity for the same. That apart, Dr. Veena Jain (PW 8), who examined the prosecutrix, had not found any external or internal injury on her body. In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court, concluded that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.

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, therefore, stands dismissed.