Misc.
Criminal Case No.8372/2012 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Amit Pandey, Government Advocate for the applicant- State.
As per office notice the application is time barred by 48 days.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is, hereby condoned.
Heard on admission.
This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”.
for short).By the impugned judgment dated 19/5/12 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna in Sessions Trial No.19/11, respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 294 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”.).Prosecution case, in brief, is that since 2-3 months prior to the date of incident, respondent no.1 Shabber was attempting to develop illicit relations with the prosecutrix and was, therefore, asked by her father Sahabali (PW1) to stay away from his house.
On 19/8/10, in the morning, when Sahabali returned from his field, his elder daughter Jahreen (PW10) informed him that prosecutrix was missing.
Thereafter, Sahabali, his wife Umibai alias Rafdeen (PW2).Jahreen, and son Jameel looked for the prosecutrix and found her with Shabber near the School at Village Mudwari.
When Sahabali and his family members were bringing the prosecutrix back, near the house of one Suresh Jaiswal, respondents intercepted their way and not only abused them filthily, but respondent no.1 also beat Jameel with kicks and fists and fled with the prosecutrix.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment.
After appreciation of evidence and material on record, it has been held by the trial Court in para 20 of the impugned judgment that on 19/8/10, prosecutrix was 18 years of age and the prosecutrix, without making any complaint, extensively traveled to Satna, Delhi and Gurgaon with respondent no.1 on her own accord and this conduct of the prosecutrix itself revealed that she was a consenting party.
Moreover, marriage between the prosecutrix and respondent no.1 was also solemnized at Jabalpur.
On perusal of the evidence and material available on record, we fully agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record.
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 order of acquittal in question.
The application, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)