The State of M.P. Vs. Santosh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1046449
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-06-2013
AppellantThe State of M.P.
RespondentSantosh
Excerpt:
crr no.1268/2002 criminal revision no.1268/2002 6.3.2013 shri s.k.kashyap, public prosecutor for the state/applicant. none for the respondent. asi shri suresh kujur of police station itars.also also present in person. he informs that the respondent is not available. it appears that the respondent is not available and therefore, it would be proper to hear the matter in his absence. shri sushil kumar tiwari, advocate is present in the court, whose named is mentioned in the panel list of legal services authority. he is appointed to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent from the side of legal services authority to assist the court. heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. the state has challenged the order dated 9.8.2002 passed by the learned second additional sessions judge, hoshangabad in s.t.no.276/2002, whereby the respondent was discharged from the charges of offence punishable under sections 363, 376 and 372 of ipc. the prosecution's case, in short, is that, the prosecutrix who was above 18 years of age, left the crr no.1268/2002 house of her maternal uncle and went to mumbai. thereafter, she was brought back by one woman namely maya to hoshangabad. thereafter, she remained with her maternal uncle jagdish for 4-5 days. thereafter, her maternal uncle kept her in the house of one micheal to look after the wife of micheal who delivered a child. the respondent was a visitor to the house of her maternal uncle. the prosecutrix left her house alongwith the respondent and thereafter, the house of one mahesh dubey was taken on rent by the respondent and he kept the prosecutrix in that house and also committed intercours.with her. thereafter, the prosecutrix told him to call her maternal uncle then, he called the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix. the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix went to that house alongwith the police and therefore, she was recovered. after hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age and therefore, no offence punishable under section 363 of ipc is constituted. similarly, the prosecutrix was not a minot and therefore, no offence punishable under section 372 of ipc shall be constituted. the prosecutrix did not tell in her case diary statement crr no.1268/2002 that any intercours.was done by the respondent, without her consent. on the contrary, she was residing as a wife of the respondent and when she asked the respondent to call her maternal uncle, he called him. under such circumstances, where there is no allegation of rape made by the prosecutrix, no offence punishable under section 376 of ipc is made out. under such circumstances, no illegality of perversity has been done by the learned second additional sessions judge, hoshangabad in discharging the respondent for the aforesaid charges. there is no basis by which the present revision filed by the state could be accepted. consequently, the revision filed by the state against the impugned order is hereby dismissed. before conclusion of the order, it is my duty to extend special thanks to shri sushil kumar tiwari, advocate, who assisted the court in a proper manner and represented the respondent. a copy of the order be sent to the trial court alongwith its record for information. (n.k.gupta) judge pushpendra
Judgment:

CRR No.1268/2002 Criminal Revision No.1268/2002 6.3.2013 Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/applicant.

None for the respondent.

ASI Shri Suresh Kujur of Police Station ItaRs.also also present in person.

He informs that the respondent is not available.

It appears that the respondent is not available and therefore, it would be proper to hear the matter in his absence.

Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate is present in the Court, whose named is mentioned in the panel list of Legal services authority.

He is appointed to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent from the side of Legal services authority to assist the Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally.

The State has challenged the order dated 9.8.2002 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in S.T.No.276/2002, whereby the respondent was discharged from the charges of offence punishable under sections 363, 376 and 372 of IPC.

The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the prosecutrix who was above 18 years of age, left the CRR No.1268/2002 house of her maternal uncle and went to Mumbai.

Thereafter, she was brought back by one woman namely Maya to Hoshangabad.

Thereafter, she remained with her maternal uncle Jagdish for 4-5 days.

Thereafter, her maternal uncle kept her in the house of one Micheal to look after the wife of Micheal who delivered a child.

The respondent was a visitor to the house of her maternal uncle.

The prosecutrix left her house alongwith the respondent and thereafter, the house of one Mahesh Dubey was taken on rent by the respondent and he kept the prosecutrix in that house and also committed intercouRs.with her.

Thereafter, the prosecutrix told him to call her maternal uncle then, he called the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix.

The maternal uncle of the prosecutrix went to that house alongwith the police and therefore, she was recovered.

After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age and therefore, no offence punishable under section 363 of IPC is constituted.

Similarly, the prosecutrix was not a minot and therefore, no offence punishable under section 372 of IPC shall be constituted.

The prosecutrix did not tell in her case diary statement CRR No.1268/2002 that any intercouRs.was done by the respondent, without her consent.

On the contrary, she was residing as a wife of the respondent and when she asked the respondent to call her maternal uncle, he called him.

Under such circumstances, where there is no allegation of rape made by the prosecutrix, no offence punishable under section 376 of IPC is made out.

Under such circumstances, no illegality of perversity has been done by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in discharging the respondent for the aforesaid charges.

There is no basis by which the present revision filed by the State could be accepted.

Consequently, the revision filed by the State against the impugned order is hereby dismissed.

Before conclusion of the order, it is my duty to extend special thanks to Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, who assisted the Court in a proper manner and represented the respondent.

A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra