Madhya Pradesh High Court: Anil Verma, J. dismissed a criminal revision filed against the impugned order whereby an application preferred by the applicant/prosecutrix under Section 311 of CrPC was been dismissed.
The father of the applicant/prosecutrix had lodged an FIR that his minor daughter was missing from his house. During the investigation, it was found that the respondent / accused person abducted the minor prosecutrix and committed rape upon her. trial Court after framing the charges afforded an opportunity of hearing to the parties to adduce their evidence. Prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court and after two years of examination, the applicant / prosecutrix had filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. stating that earlier when her statement was recorded she was minor and she deposed her statement under the pressure of her parents. Now she became major and got married, therefore, she wants to adduce her evidence afresh and wanted to examine herself as a witness before the trial Court again. Trial Court had rejected the application.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case it was established that on earlier occasion prosecutrix was examined before the trial Court and after two years of her examination she has filed this application for restatement, but during the period of above 02 years prosecutrix did not made any complaint before the trial Court by stating that her statement was taken under the pressure of her parents.
The Court noted that prosecutrix statement had been recorded by the trial Court with due care and according to the law and after expiry of 02 years she has filed this application for re-examination, in these circumstances it appears that prosecutrix may be win over by the accused person by any undue means. Even if she permitted to change her statement before the Court, it would be dangerous for the legal system and it may be also misuse of Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
Criminal revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed opining that impugned order passed by the trial Court was just and proper and does not suffer from any legal infirmity.[X v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 893, decided on 07-05-2022]
For applicant: Mr Surya Patil
For respondent: Mr Ranjeet Sen, Mr Pankaj Taknet