State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Govind And Others

@JUDGEMENTTAG-JUDGMENT

Rohit Arya, J

Heard on I.A. No. 7180 of 2024, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

It is submitted that there is delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. Sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Hence, delay is condoned. IA No. 7180 of 2024 stands allowed.

Also Heard on I.A. No. 7081 of 2024, an application under section 378(3) for grant o f leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondents dated 18.12.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lateri, District Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh) in Special Sessions Case No.27/2022, whereby respondent No.1-Govind Gurjar has been acquitted of charges levelled against him under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 376-D(a) of IPC and under Sections 3/4 (2), 5(L)/6,5-G/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and appellant No.2-Bhagwat Singh has been acquitted of charges levelled against him under Sections 363, 366-A, 427, 376-D(a) read with Section 108 of IPC and under Sections 5-G/6 read with Section 17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012

We have heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State. We have also perused the impugned judgment.

3 . The conclusion of acquittal drawn in favour of the respondents particularly, in view of paragraphs No.34, 35, 44, 53, 59, 61, 68 and 69 of the impugned judgment, appears to be reasonable and plausible based on proper appreciation of evidence. The judgment and the reasoning thereof, are not manifestly illegal or perverse to make out a case of miscarriage of justice. The judgment is impregnable as neither there is any illegality nor irregularity in the finding so recorded. Therefore, no compelling or substantial reasons for interference by this appellate Court and for grant of leave to appeal, are made out.

Accordingly, the I.A. No. 7081 of 2024 is rejected.

Consequently, present appeal stands dismissed.