STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SUNIL BANJARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on admission.

(2.) BY the present application, the State has sought for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17.5.2013 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in ST No. 23/2013 whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC.

(3.) AFTER considering the prosecution evidence and submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant -State, it appears that the prosecutrix was a married woman aged 25 years having two children. Her story that the respondent took her forcefully and by promise to marry her appears to be fake. When she was already married, then nobody could convince her for remarriage without her consent. However, the prosecutrix against her case diary statement has stated that the respondent told her that an accident took place of her husband Sitaram, and therefore she went with the respondent. Guddi Bai (PW -5) and Vardi Bai (PW -4) have stated that the respondent came to the house of the prosecutrix and told that an accident took place of Sitaram, husband of the prosecutrix, therefore she went with the respondent. Vardi Bai was the mother -in -law of the prosecutrix, who has also stated that she told her son when he reached to his house that the respondent took the prosecutrix. If such fact was correct, then certainly Sitaram would have informed in the missing report Ex. P -3 that the respondent took the prosecutrix. Under such circumstances, the story that the respondent took the prosecutrix with the pretext of accident of her husband appears to be a falsehood. A married woman of 25 years of age having two children went with the respondent, then certainly she was a consenting party.