HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADI]SH : JABALPUR
Smt. Halki Bai
The State of Madkya Pradesh anr.
Shri Vinod Kumar Dubey, Advocate for the appellant.
Smt. Namrata Agrawal, Govt. Advocate for the respondent State.
Ms. Priyanka Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.2
Hon’ble Shri Justice Hemant Gupta, Chief Justice.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
( Jabalpur, dtd.7.08.2018)
Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-
The present application has been filed under Section
374(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal
against the order dated 22-10-2016 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Bina, District Sagar in S.T. No.562/2012 [State of
M.P. vs. Prakash Singh Dangi and another] whereby the trial Court
has acquitted the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under
sections 450, 376(2)(g) and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 30-8-2000 at
about 11:00 PM in the Village Dhimrauli, when the prosecutrix was
in her house and her husband had gone to take `bidi’ and her children
were sleeping, at that time the accused persons, namely, Dhannalal
(since deceased) and Prakash Singh Dangi, respondent No.2 herein,
entered into the house and tried to outrage her modesty and when the
prosecutrix shouted the accused-respondent No.2 shut her mouth
pressing cloth and fell her down and as alleged, the prosecutrix was
subjected to rape by both the accused persons one by one. She did not
disclose the incident to anyone, as she was threatened by the accused
persons to be killed. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away and
children of the prosecutrix got up. When her husband returned she
narrated the incident to him and in the next morning, first information
report was lodged at the Police Station, Bina, District Sagar against
the accused persons in respect of the offence punishable under
sections 450, 376, 506-11/34 and 190 of the Indian Penal Code and
also under section 3(1)(xii) read with section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was sent for medico legal
examination. After completing necessary investigation, charge-sheet
was filed before the competent court of jurisdiction which, in turn,
committed the matter to the Court of Sessions. By the impugned
judgment, trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of the
alleged charges levelled against him.
4. It is vehemently urged by the counsel for the applicant
that the trial Court has erred in law disbelieving the statement of the
prosecutrix and acquitting the accused persons of the charges.
Statement of the prosecutrix has been supported by Tularam (PW-02),
her husband. When he came back to the house, incident was narrated
to him by the prosecutrix and in the morning report was lodged at the
Police Station concerned.
5. In the cross-examination the prosecutrix in para 8 has
stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were also living in the
same house and she did not raise any alarm when the accused persons
are alleged to have forcibly entered into the house and attempted to
ravish her sexually. Besides, the prosecutrix and her husband have
admitted that the incident was not disclosed to any neighbour or other
relatives. Though, she states in her statement that she shouted for help
and raised alarm, however, her in-laws, who were sleeping in the
courtyard of the house did not come.
6. In the medical examination of the prosecutrix conducted
by Dr. Saroj Bhuria, no any external injury was found on her person.
There was a single injury on her hip, but there was no allegation that
the accused-persons had caused any injury on the hip of the
prosecutrix. Further, the doctor in his medical report has stated that
no definite opinion can be given about commission or rape.
7. That, it was pleaded on behalf of the accused-respondent
No.2 that he has been falsely implicated, because at the time of the
alleged incident he was an elected Sarpanch of the Village. This fact
has been admitted by Tularam (PW-02) -husband of the prosecutrix.
8. In view of the totality of the circumstances, genesis of
the occurrence, character of evidence, especially testimony of the
prosecutrix which is not corroborated with medical evidence and
other cogent and plausible evidence, we do not find any jurisdictional
error in the impugned order of acquittal passed by the leaned trial
Court and the same is impeccable.
9. In view of aforesaid assimilation of facts and evidence,
we do not find any error in the order of acquittal passed by the
learned trial Court in appellate jurisdiction. The scope of interference
in appeal against acquittal is settled in various judgments.
10. In the case of Harbeer singh vs. Sheeshpal and others,
(2016) 16 SCC 418 the Apex Court referred earlier jugements
rendered in the cases of State Of U.P. vs. Harihar Bux Singh,
(1975) 3 SCC 167; State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar, (1979) 3 SCC
1; State of U.P. vs. Gopi, 1980 Supp SCC 160; State of Karnataka
vs. Amajappa, (2003) 9 SCC 468; State of U.P. vs. Banne, (2009) 4
SCC 271; State of U.P. vs. Guru Charan, (2010) 3 SCC 721; State
of Haryana vs. Shakuntla, (2012) 5 SCC 171; and Hamza vs.
Muhammedkutty, (2013) 11 SCC 150 and held that in case of
acquittal, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with appreciation
of evidence on on the findings of fact, unless the same is perverse or
manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. Mere fact that another view could
also have been taken on the evidence on record, is not a ground for
12. Thus, in the light of the above discussion, we are of the
view that the present application for grant of leave to appeal is devoid
of merit, and we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by
the leaned trial Court. The application is accordingly dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2018.08.09 18:18:20 +05’30’