STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. LAKHAN LAL PATEL
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Lakhan Lal Patel
Click here to view full judgement.
Virender Singh,J. -
(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the acquittal of the respondent/accused from the charge under Sections 376, 506 (II) of I.P.C and Section 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O Act 2012 recorded by First Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar vide judgment dated 4.9.2019 delivered in S.T No. 38/18.
(2.) The core ground for questioning the judgment is that the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused on the basis of improvised statement of the prosecutrix while it was duty bound to separate the grain from the chaff. The Statement of the victim/prosecutrix is consistent since lodging of the F.I.R, when she was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class for recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and when examined before the Court as prosecution witness No. 1. On all three occasions she has consistently stated that 15 days prior to the festival of Holi, her neighbour Lakhanlal took her to his farm to harvest his Arhar crop and in the afternoon when his wife went back home and she was alone, he raped her. He also threatened her to kill in case of disclosure of the incident to anyone. Initially she did not disclose the incident, but after sometime she started feeling unwell, narrated the incident to her parents and lodged F.I.R.
(3.) The learned Panel Lawyer has relied upon State of Rajasthan v. Biram Lal , 2005 10 SCC 714 (Paragraph 15), Vishnu @ Undrya v. State of Maharashtra , 2006 1 SCC 283 (Pargraph No. 25), State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny , 2017 2 SCC 51 (Paragraph 31) State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Choudhary and others , 2019 11 SCC 575 (paragraph 29) to bolster his contentions that to hold coniviction in the cases of rape and alike matters, conviction can be based on solitary statement of the prosecutrix. He further relied upon C. Muniappan and other v. State of Tamil Nadu , 2010 9 SCC 567 (paragraph 55), State of Karnataka v. Suvarnamma and another , 2015 1 SCC 323 (Paragraph 11) and submitted that the prosecutrix cannot be held responsible for the defective investigation, if any.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.