STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BABULAL ALIAS BABLIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Miscellaneous Criminal Case leave to file appeal is sought under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 18/9/2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate ClassI, Khetiya, District Barwani in Criminal Case No.531/2011 acquitting the accused respondent from offence under Section 354 of the IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated; the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Manglabai was residing near the Shiv Tekari and was a domestic servant. Her husband Sunil had gone to State of Gujarat to earn his livelihood. When on 3/12/2011 she and her motherinlaw Babibai had just after their dinner and closed the door and were sleeping in the courtyard. At around 1.00a.m.in the night Babliya s/o Thobadiya r/o Takali came there and with ill intention sat on the cot and caught hold of her hand when she woke and started shouting, he closed her mouth. However, her motherinlaw got up and in the light of electric bulb she recognized the accused Babliya and he ran away. However, his mobile and keys were left behind. She informed the incident to her brotherinlaw in the next day morning and thereafter she along with her motherinlaw and brotherinlaw reached at the police station Pansemal and deposited the mobile and keys and the FIR was filed. The crime No.143/2011 was registered for offence under Section 354 of the Cr.P.C. and the investigation launched. The accused was arrested and committed to his trial. The accused abjured his guilt and has stated that the has been falsely implicated in the matter. However, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused from the offence. Being aggrieved, the applicant/State has filed the present application for grant of leave to file appeal.

(3.) COUNSEL for the applicant/State has urged the fact that there was ample evidence available on record, despite which the trial Court had erred in acquitting the respondent/accused. Counsel submitted that P.W.1 Manglabai has been steadfast in her examination and has categorically stated that the accused had with bad intention closed her mouth and tried to ravish her; thereafter her motherinlaw had reached and the accused had fled away from the spot. Besides the mobile and keys were left behind. Under these circumstances, Counsel submitted that the accused ought to have been convicted. Besides there was evidence of P.W. 6 Suresh and P.W.7 Vittal they had corroborated the prosecution story. Hence, Counsel prayed that the application for leave to file appeal be allowed.