PRAMOD YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been referred to the Division Bench in view of difference of opinion expressed by two Single Benches of this Court in Mohd. Juned vs. State of M.P. , 2016 1 MPJR 108 and in Smt. Sunita Gandharva vs. State of M.P. and another in MCRC No.22615/2020.

(2.) The present matter in which the order of reference has been made, has been filed as a Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act") against the order dated 23.07.2020 passed by Special Judge, Atrocities Act, Seoni in SC ATR No.08/2020. In fact, earlier appeal filed by appellant viz. Criminal Appeal No.10267/2019, was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.12.2019 with liberty to him to file afresh appeal after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix.

(3.) The facts of the case in brief are that the police station Keolari, District Seoni registered Crime No.314/2019 against the accused/appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC, Section 5(L) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "the POCSO Act") and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of Atrocities Act on the allegation that he abducted the minor prosecutrix and took her to Nagpur where he sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage. During the course of investigation, the accused/appellant was arrested on 22.10.2019. He filed an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail which was rejected by the Special Judge, Atrocities Act, Seoni vide order dated 23.07.2020. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the earlier appeal viz. CRA No.10267/2019, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.12.2019 with liberty to file afresh after recording of the statement of prosecutrix. Thereafter the trial Court recorded the statement of prosecutrix wherein she did not support the prosecution story and deposed that appellant did not commit rape with her. This paved the way for the accused/appellant to file second appeal on the same subject matter.