MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sujoy Paul and Dwarka Dhish Bansal, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh through
Police Station Hatta Balaghat —Applicant
versus
Golu alias Jitendra Kuthe —Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No.14547 of 2022
Decided on 7.5.2022
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 read with Sections 29 and 30 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376-(A) (B) and 377 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378(3) – Sexual assault on girl child – Appeal against acquittal – As per Section 29 and 30, there is presumption of commission of crime unless proved otherwise – In entire judgment there is no whisper about DNA report which was even marked as Exhibit – There is serious flaw in judgment because of non-consideration of a material scientific evidence – DNA report is in favour of prosecution – There is no mention about DNA report in entire judgment – Strong case is made out for grant of leave – Leave granted and Registry directed to convert it into appeal. (Paras 2 to 5)
Result: Application allowed. Leave granted.
Order
Sujoy Paul, J.—Learned G.A. for the applicant-State is heard on the application for grant of leave to appeal filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2021 passed in S.C. No. 52/2020 by learned Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Balaghat acquitting the respondent from the charges punishable under Sections 376-(A) (B), 377 of Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant-State submits that as per the finding of Court below the prosecutrix was aged about 10 years which is clear from para 10 of the impugned judgment. As per the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and more particularly as per Section 29 & 30, there is a presumption of commission of crime unless proved otherwise.
3. During the trial, PW-9 Shri K.L. Barkade entered the witness box and produced the DNA report which is in favour of the prosecution. Sadly, in the entire judgment there is no whisper about that DNA report which was even marked as Exhibit P-29. There is serious flaw in the judgment because of non consideration of a material scientific evidence.
4. We have seen the statement of PW-9 as well as Ex. P-29 (DNA report). There is no mention about this report in the entire judgment. Thus, a strong case is made out for grant of leave.
5. We accordingly, grant leave and direct the Registry to convert it into an appeal.
6. The copy of this order-sheet be sent to the Registrar General of this Court for placing the order before the appropriate committee on the administrative side so that appropriate action/decision may be taken against the erring judge for not considering a crucial medical evidence of DNA report in the impugned judgment.
7. Registry shall issue bailable warrant of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the respondent for his presence on a date to be fixed by Registry before the Registry.
8. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is disposed of.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.