Full Judgment
M.Cr.C.No.10163/2012 22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the applicant-State.
Heard on admission.
This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31/5/2012 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) at Sehore, in Special Case No.80/2011, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 363, 376, 366-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”.) and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Act.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10/6/2011, Rajkumaribai lodged a missing person report to the effect that her daughter viz.
the prosecutrix, a member of scheduled caste, aged about 17 years and 8 months, was missing since yesterday from 2.30 p.m.During investigation, prosecutrix was found to be a minor.
It also surfaced that the respondent had kidnapped her.
Accordingly, offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, were registered against the respondent.
On 17/6/2011, prosecutrix was recovered, and upon her statement, offence under Section 376, IPC was also added.
Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Deputy Advocate General, we have perused the impugned judgment.
After appreciation of age-related evidence on record, the trial Court found that in the school register (Ex.P/12).date of birth of prosecutrix was entered as 5/12/1994 and on the date of incident, she was more than 16 years of age.
Moreover, the said entry was not found reliable as it was not proved by the prosecution that at whose instance, the date of birth was recorded in the school register.
Therefore, on the basis of X-ray report (Ex.P/6).the trial Court held that the prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age on the date of incident.
It was admitted by prosecutrix (PW2) that she had gone with the respondent after receiving his telephone call and had travelled from Sehore to Ratlam, where she had resided with the respondent for several days in a room.
She also admitted that she had informed her mother that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent.
Dr.
Smt.
Garima Namdeo (PW6).in the medical examination of prosecutrix found that her hymen was old ruptured.
She did not notice any injury on the person of the prosecutrix and opined that the prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse.
Further, caste certificate to prove that the prosecutrix belonged to a Scheduled Caste, was also not produced.
Moreover, there is nothing on record to establish that the alleged offence was committed on the ground that prosecutrix belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
The trial Court, accordingly, concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perveRs.or palpably unsustainable.
Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.
As such, no interference is called for with the judgment of acquittal in question.
The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)