IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH ON THE 5^th OF JULY, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38219 of 2020 Between:-

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH P.S. SIMROL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY MS GEETANJALI CHOURASIA, PANEL LAWYER )

AND SHANKAR S/O KALLU KHARADI , AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, GRAM-CHIKHLI, TEHSIL-MAHOW, THANA-SIMROL, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE FOR RESPONDENT)

This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioner/State u/S 378(3) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.02.2020 pronounced by the Special Judge (POCSO), Indore in S.S.T. 52/2020 whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charges framed u/S 354, 506(B) of IPC and Sec 7 r/W 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Prosecution case in brief is that on 04.12.2019 at about 4:30 p.m., when minor prosecutrix aged about 15 years was returning home, appellant came Signature Not Verified SAN there and asked as to why she did not take her with him. Respondent thereafter with an intent to outrage her modesty caught hold of her hand and when she screamed, he threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone otherwise, he will kill her.

Prosecutrix narrated the incident to Devika Bai and and thereafter to her father and mother and on next day i.e.05.12.2019 at about 15:45 p.m. lodged the FIR against the respondent.

Learned trial Court framed charges against the respondent for the offences punishable u/Ss 354, 506(B) of IPC and Sec 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Respondent abjured his guilt and pleaded his false implication in the matter and trial Court while passing impugned judgment of acquittal discussed the evidence available on record and arrived at a conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident, respondent with an intent to outrage the modesty of prosecutrix assaulted or used criminal force and threatened her. It has been observed that before the incident, a quarrel took place between prosecutrix's father and respondent about which appellant made a complaint against father of the prosecutrix, therefore without any corroborative evidence on the basis of inconsistent statement of prosecutrix, it is not safe to hold the respondent guilty for the aforesaid offences.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this petition u/S 378(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal on the ground that findings recorded by the trial Court to acquit the respondent are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, as material evidence adduced by the prosecution has not been properly appreciated.

Signature Not Verified SAN It is further submitted that statement of prosecutrix is supported by an independent witness Devika Bai as well as the FIR lodged by the her. Learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondent. Hence, this petition may be allowed and leave to appeal may be granted.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/State at length and perused the record.

From the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) and non-cognizable offence information report(Ex. D-1) produced by the respondent, it is an admitted fact that on the date of incident i.e. on 04.12.2019 at about 21:40 p.m., respondent made a complaint against the father of prosecutrix to the effect that at about 8:30 p.m, when respondent was going towards Chiklha pond, prosecutrix's father met him in an inebriated stated and hurled filthy abuses. He assaulted him and warned him not to pass through his house. It is also an admitted fact that report of the present case was lodged on the next day i.e. 05.12.2019 at about 15:45 p.m, by the prosecutrix mentioning therein that incident happened before the aforesaid case on 04.12.2019(Ex. P-1) at about 16:40 p.m. i.e. before the inc