State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sanjay

The applicant/State has preferred this petition under section 378(3) of code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short 'the code'), against the judgment of acquittal dated 10/05/2019 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur, in S.T. No.31/2019, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of offence under sections 354, 506-II of IPC, 1860 read with Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Prosecution case in short is that on 16/12/2018 at about 4.30 pm the minor victim aged about 16 years was going to graze the cattles and when she reached near mango tree, the present applicant came there, he caught hold of the victim and pressed her breast with intention to outrage her modesty. On an alarm being raised by the victim the applicant fled away from the spot, threatening her for dire consequences. Victim went to her house and narrated the incident to her parents. Thereafter she along with her parents went to Police-Station Kalapipal and lodged a report against the applicant. On the basis of which Police registered FIR for offence under Section 354, 506-II of IPC, 1860 read with Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed.

The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, vide judgment dated 10/05/2019 acquitted the respondent/accused from the aforesaid offence. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the applicant/State has preferred this application.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and wrongly acquitted the respondent/accused only on the ground that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, there is previous enmity between the family members of the victim and the accused, therefore learned counsel prayed for grant of leave to appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the record and impugned judgment.

In the statement of the victim, she has deposed that at the time of the incident several persons were coming and going from the place of occurrence, however, neither their names have been mentioned in the FIR nor they have been examined before the trial Court. The victim(P.W.1) and her mother (P.W.3) have also accepted that there was previous enmity between their families and Kaluram, the brother of the respondent has made complaint against the victim's mother regarding non-payment of delivery amount paid under Mother's Safety Scheme, therefore, the trial Court was of the view that due to the aforesaid enmity, the victim has lodged FIR against the respondent. According to medical report also no external injuries were found on the person of the victim.

Thus, looking to the findings given by the trial Court in para 21 to 25 of the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent/accused. The prosecution has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

Accordingly, no grounds are available for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment. Resultantly, M.Cr.C. No.35705/2019 is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.

Certified copy, as per rules.