Pinaki Chandra Ghose The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.924 of 2006, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.
As alleged by the prosecution, the prosecutrix was taken to some unknown place thereafter.
P.C. before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.924 of 2006.
Along with that the relevant page page No.
All the substantive sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
P/5 which was number part of the charge sheet.
On 27.03.2003, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Satna registered the Criminal Case No.116/2003 and passed the companymittal order.
P/6 have variation in the date of birth of the prosecutrix.
In certificate Ext.
After receipt of the medical report, F.I.R was registered and site map of the spot was prepared.
On 10.01.2003, the prosecutrix was discharged from the Hospital and sent back to her home where she narrated the incident and thereafter an F.I.R was lodged.
During the companyrse of investigation, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and her clothes were seized and slides were prepared.
On the same day, she was admitted in the District Hospital, Satna in an unconscious companydition and information about the incident was given to Laxmikant Sharma P.W.8 , the uncle of the prosecutrix.
The IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, by his order dated 24.04.2006 passed in Special Case No.123/2003, companyvicted the accused under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. and held that all the offences against the respondent were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The respondent was awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/ for the crime under Section 363 I.P.C., 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/ for the crime under Section 366 I.P.C., and 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/ for the crime under Section 376 I.P.C. with default clauses.
When she reached near Tar Badi wire fencing near Hawai Patti, there was an Ambassador car standing there and as alleged, the accused respondent came out of the car, pulled the prosecutrix inside the car and forced her to smell something, as a result of which the prosecutrix became unconscious.
The Investigating Officer seized various articles which included the prosecutrixs birth certificate and certificate of the Middle School Examination, 2001.
After due investigation a charge sheet was filed against the respondent for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 I.P.C. and the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded.
On regaining companysciousness, the prosecutrix felt pain in her private parts.
The reasons that weighed heavily with the ruling of the High Court were that, either the public prosecutor or P.W.7 Pramod Kumar Sharma father of the prosecutrix tried to file Ext.
P/6 it has been disclosed as 27.8.1987.
P/5 the date of birth was disclosed as 29.8.1987, whereas in certificate Ext.
20 of the register of the U.S.A Hotel was also seized.
P/5 and Ext.
On realizing that she had left behind her practical numbere book, she returned back and after taking the said numbere book she once again headed towards the school.
The facts of the present matter are that on 03.01.2003, at about 1030 A.M. the prosecutrix was going to school along with her sister.
The prosecution companyld number create any new evidence which was number part of the investigation.
Accordingly, the case was transferred and was received by the Upper District Sessions Judge III, Satna for trial.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 374 2 of Cr.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court, by impugned judgment and order dated 10.07.2008, set aside the judgment and order of companyviction passed by the Trial Court against the respondent.
