CHANDRAVATTI BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal against acquittal of the respondent no. 2 for alleged offence punishable under sections 366 and 363 of the I.P.C.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the court below has wrongly disbelieved the statement of the prosecutrix PW/1 Chandravatti Bai regarding commission of the offence by the respondent no. 2 by taking into consideration the minor discrepancy which amounts to gross illegality and perversity in appreciation of evidence. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding recorded by the court below regarding the age is contrary to the evidence available on record as the prosecutrix was minor at the time of commission of the offence.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, it is observed that the respondent no. 2/accused was prosecuted for the alleged offence punishable under sections 366 and 363 of the IPC. The court below on the basis of the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix Rajmotin Bai PW/3 and the document on record has recorded a finding to the effect that prosecutrix at the time of commission of offence was 18 years old. Nothing has been pointed out to indicate that the court below has wrongly appreciated the statement of Rajmotin Bai PW/3, mother of the prosecutrix or document on record.