State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Narendra

Applicant/State has preferred this application under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11/04/2019 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi, District-Dhar in Special S.T. No. 24/2019, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 354 and 506(II) of the IPC alongwith Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

As per the prosecution case on 03/01/2019 at about 5:15 p.m., the victim aged about 14 years, was going from school towards her house, when she was on the way, the respondent/accused met her. He caught hold her hands and told that he loved her and wanted to marry with her. Respondent/accused also threatened the victim that if she will not do so, then he would kill her. After hearing the hue and cry of the victim, cousin of the victim reached at the spot and after seeing him the respondent fled away. The matter was reported to the Police-Station-Kuskshi. On the basis of which FIR bearing Crime No. 11/2019 for commission of offence punishble under Sections 354 and 506(II) of the IPC alonwith Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was registered against the respondent. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence produced by the learned counsel for the parties, has come to the conclusion that although the victim was minor at the time of alleged incident but prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondent beyond reasonable doubts and acquitted him from the aforesaid offence. Being aggrieved, applicant/State has filed this petition for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that from the statement of the victim, it is established beyond reasonable doubts that the respondent caught hold her hands and threatened her with intend to outrage her modesty, however, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and wrongly acquitted the respondent for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 506(II) of the IPC alongwith Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Hence, he prayed for grant of leave to appeal against impugned judgment of acquittal.

Having heard learned Public Prosecutor for the applicant/State and perused the impugned judgment and record.

From the statement of the victim, it appears that although she was minor aged about 14 years at the time of alleged incident, however, she accepted in her cross-examination that she was having friendship with the respondent and she met with the respondent regularly. She also accepted that when she was returning from school to house a lot of school children were walking behind her, therefore, it is not appears to be reliable that in presence of a lot of children, the respondent/accused will be caught hold the hands of the victim with intend to outrage her modesty. She also accepted in her cross-examination that her parents does not like her friendship with the respondent/accused, therefore, she has lodged the FIR against the respondent at the instance of her father after detailed consultation with her parents. Cousin of the victim, who is alleged to have been eye witness of the incident has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile, therefore, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved testimony of the victim and acquitted the respondent/accused for the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the applicant/State could not point out that how and in what manner the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge is not possible or plausible. No perversity could be set forth in the impugned order.

Looking to the statement of the victim and findings given by the trial Court in para Nos. 23 to 30 of the impugned judgment and in view of the re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I am of the considered view that there is no grounds are available on record for grant of leave against the impugned judgment. Resultantly, the petition filed on behalf of the applicant/State filed under Secion 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.