(1.) The judgment of absolvitur passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T. No. 226/2016, has been made pivot by the State of M.P. by preferring this application for leave to file an appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. acquitting the respondent from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 354(A)(I)(II) and 506(II) of the IPC alongwith Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
(2.) No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this matter, suffice it to say that the respondent was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 354(A)(I)(II) and 506(II) of the IPC alongwith Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
(3.) Victim is a minor girl aged about 12 years. On going through her testimony, she testified in her court statement that on 22/02/2016 at about 13:30 hrs., she was alone at her house and her mother went to the market; whereas her father had gone to the Indore. Meantime, her neighbour Monu come to her house and told her that his mother is calling you. Then she went to the house of Monu, where he caught hold her hand and hugged her, when she cried, then Monu left her. However, in her cross-examination, victim admits that her mother made a demand of Rs.50,000/- from the mother of accused/respondent, due to which a dispute arose between them. She also accepts in her court statement that earlier also her mother lodged the complaint against other members of the locality. It has also come in the court statement of the victim that at the time of alleged incident, the appellant's father was also present there thus it is not possible for the appellant to commit such offence in the presence of his father. Victim also admits in her court statement that they have engaged a counsel for assistance and before giving evidence in the Court, he had read over the FIR and he had also told about the date and time of the incident, which clearly indicates that the victim is a tutted witness. There is several material discrepancies and omissions have come in the statement of victim, therefore, looking to the findings given by the trial Court in para Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent from the alleged offence.