SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dalu @ Ramkumar Patel on 26 March, 2018

(State of M.P. Vs. Dalu @ Ramkumar Patel)

Jabalpur Dated :26/03/2018
Mr.Sudeep Deb, learned Government Advocate for the
This is an application under Section 378(III) of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to appeal
against the judgement of acquittal passed by the Special
Judge under POCSO Act, Damoh in Special Sessions Trial
No.24/15 pronounced on 29/06/2016, whereby the
accused/respondent has been acquitted from the charges

punishable under Section 363,366-A, of IPC and under
Section 5/6 of POCSO Act in alternate under Section 376-
2(n) of IPC.

According to prosecution, on 02/03/2013
respondent/ accused took prosecutrix (PW-6) from the
guardianship of her parents and kept her in Chhattarpur,
Mathura and District Hissar and committed rape upon her
reguarly. On her missing on 03/03/2013 a missing report
was registered. During her stay with respondent she gave
birth to two children. Later on, on 01/04/2015 she was
recovered from the possession of the respondent at Patel
Nagar, Hissar Haryana. Thereafter, after completing
investigation charge sheet was filed.

After filing charge sheet case was committed to Trial
Court and then Trial Court levelled charges punishable
under Section 363,366-A of IPC and under Section 5/6 of
POCSO Act and in alternate under Section 376-2(n) of IPC
against the respondent/accused, who abjured the guilt. The
Trial Court, after considering the plea of the
accused/respondent disbelieved the testimony of witnesses
of the prosecution and acquitted the accused/respondent.

Learned Government Advocate Shri Sudeep Deb
submits that impugned judgment passed by the learned
Trial Court is wholly erroneous in law as well as on facts.
Learned Trial Court committed grave error in holding that
the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations without
appreciating the material available on record in its true

Prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. ,
Smt. Seema Patel (PW-1), who is mother of the prosecutrix
and Awadh Bihari Patel(PW-4), who is father of the
prosecutrix have stated that their daughter (prosecutrix)
went to school but did not return and thereafter missing
report was lodged. Smt. Seema Patel (PW-1) has stated that
later on she came to know that respondent/accused took
her daughter with him to Hissar. Father of prosecutrix has
stated that her daughter went with her friend(saheli) to
Haryana and lived there for two years. He has stated that
she was not with the respondent. Ins pite of these evidence,
prosecutrix who is an important witness has herself stated
that due to some disputes she became angry with her father
and went to Hissar with her friend (Saheli) and after living
there for two years she came back with her friend. She has
further stated that at Hissar she worked as a Labourer. She
has further stated that when she came back to her village,
she came to know that her father has lodged a report in
police station and then she went to police station with her
father. She has been declared hostile. She has been cross
examined at length by the prosecution but nothing has
come in support of the prosecution. In her cross
examination, done by the defence, she has admitted that
respondent-accused did not take her to any place and he did
not do anything wrong with her. She has further stated that
she has given statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C under
pressure and suggession of police. She has not supported
the case of prosecution and has not stated anything against
the respondent/accused in support of any charge levelled
against him.

On the basis of statements of above witnesses and
other evidence available on record, we are of the view that
charges levelled against the accused/respondent are not
proved. Accordingly, the Trial Court has rightly concluded
that charges levelled against the accused/respondent
punishable under Section 363,366-A, of IPC and under
Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and in alternate under Section
376-2(n) of IPC have not been proved, which is totally
based on evidence available on record and as per law.

It is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal, the
appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and
reconsider the evidence. There is no limitation, restriction
or condition for the exercise of such powers and the
appellate Court may draw its own conclusion on all
questions of facts and law. However, the reversal of acquittal
can be made only if the conclusions recorded by the trial
Court did not reflect a possible view, that is to say a view
which can reasonably be arrived at. In the case of acquittal,
the judgment of the trial Court should be interfered with
only where there is absolute assurance of guilt of the
accused/respondent on the basis of evidence on record and
not merely because the appellate Court can take another
possible or a different view.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Kali Ram Vs.State
of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773, has held as

“Another golden thread which runs
through the web of the administration of
justice in criminal cases is that if two view
are possible on the evidence adduced in
the case one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the
view which is favourable to the accused
should be adopted. This principle has a
special relvance in cases where in the guilt
of the accused is sought to be established
by circumstantial evidence.

In the aforesaid circumstances, in the opinion of this
court, learned trial Court has considered the entire material
evidence against accused/respondent on record in its
entirety and on proper appreciation of evidence, after
assigning detailed and cogent reasons, has acquitted the
accused/respondent. Unless the judgment of acquittal is
palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in a
case against acquittal, is not called for. In catena of
judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the
evaluation of the evidence by the trial Court does not suffer
from illegality, manifest error or perversity and the main
grounds on which it has based its order are reasonable and
plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of
acquittal even if another view is possible.

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal against
acquittal of the accused/respondent deserves to be and is
hereby, dismissed in limine at the stage of admission itself.

Judge Judge

Digitally signed by
Date: 2018.03.28 17:27:58

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation