STATE OF M.P. Vs. ABHISHEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the instance of State of Madhya Pradesh is for grant of leave to challenge the judgment dated 26/10/2016 passed by the Special Court, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Vidisha, recording acquittal of respondent for offence under Sections 376(D), 376(B), 376(C) of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(12) and 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 3(b)/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

(2.) The respondent was tried for aforesaid offences on the prosecution story that on 09/03/2014 at 6-6.30 PM when the prosecutrix along-with her sister and a friend had gone to attend the nature's call at nearby nallah. She was caught hold by the respondent and his younger brother Kalla Yadav (who being minor is tried by the Juvenile Board). Whereas, Kalla fiddled with her, the MCRC-1445-2017 (State of M.P. and Ors. vs. Abhishek) accused-respondent breached her chastity. On lodging of report by the prosecutrix's father on 10/03/2014, the prosecution was set in motion. The prosecutrix was medically examined. The statement of prosecutrix and her sister were recorded. The accused persons were arrested. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The respondent-accused abjured his guilt and pleaded that he is falsely implicated. The prosecution besides examining the prosecutrix(PW/1) examined other witnesses to bring home the charges.

(3.) The trial Court, after meticulously analyzing the testimony of prosecutrix, found that she is not creditworthy, because of the major conduction as to the event narrated during course of investigation and thereafter in Court. The trial Court found that even the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecutrix version as to the commission of crime. Trial Court found major contradiction in the statement of Mamta Bai(PW/2), younger sister of the prosecutrix and Varsha (PW/4), friend of prosecutrix. It found that as per statement of Varsha(PW/4), she alone went with prosecturix to attend the nature's call; whereas, Shivlal(PW/5), father of the prosecutrix and her mother Laltabai(PW/6) stated that they were informed by their daughter Mamta(PW/2). The trial Court further MCRC-1445-2017 (State of M.P. and Ors. vs. Abhishek) found that Varsha(PW/4) having not gone to inform the prosecutrix's parents. In that event, the trial Court found that entire story knit by the prosecution became doubtful. The trial Court found: