Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1197 (MP)

Narendra @ Pappoo v. State of M. P.

2010-11-30

M.A.SIDDIQUI

body2010
JUDGMENT M.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Appellant feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 20/01/1996, delivered by the then 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No. 637/93 in which Appellant has been convicted under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 100/- as also under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine Appellant to further undergo R.I. for one month on each count. 2. In nut shell the prosecution story is that on 30.3.93 at about 2.30 PM in Gayatri Nagar Appellant abducted/kidnapped Ku. Vinita, a girl aged about 13 years, from the lawful guardianship of her parents and he took her to different places. Report was lodged by Smt. Premvati Soni, mother of minor girl on 31.3.93 at 12.15 PM at PS-Katni where offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC vide Crime No. 188/93 was registered against the accused as it was revealed by the companions of the minor that from the school Appellant took her and went towards the Jungle. 3. Police in the investigation seized birth certificate of Ku. Vinita in which her date of birth was shown as 20.11.1978 vide Ex.P/5-A. Accused was arrested and after usual investigation charge sheet was filed. Case was committed for trial. After due trial 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge on 23.12.93 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 IPC against the Appellant. 4. Appellant abjured the guilt .and contended that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. His defence was that he did not commit any crime and not abducted the minor. 5. After due trial, learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge relying on the statements of Premvati (PW.1), Vijay Kumar (PW.2), Harikrishn Pandey (PW.3), Premnarayan (PW.4), Madan Kumar (PW.5), Jitendra Kumar Patel (PW.6), Ballu (PW.7), Pappu Dwivedi @ Pammu (PW.8), Vinita Soni (PW.9) the prosecutrix, Kishore (PW.10), R.D. Uike (PW.11), Krishn Kumar Dwivedi (PW.12) headmaster of school and Naresh Sharma (PW.13), convicted and sentenced the accused-Appellant as aforesaid. 6. Ku. Vinita Soni (PW.9) has categorically stated in the Court that she knew the accused Appellant. She has stated that she was student of sixth class on the date of incident. She had gone to school. 6. Ku. Vinita Soni (PW.9) has categorically stated in the Court that she knew the accused Appellant. She has stated that she was student of sixth class on the date of incident. She had gone to school. At 2.30 PM when recess was there, she came out of school, Appellant Narendra was standing nearby where she was called by him, Appellant forced her to walk with him, at the time he was having knife with him, he took her in the cycle to bus stand and from bus stand, she was forced to sit in a bus up to railway station, and in railway station she was forced to sit in a train and at 9.30 PM accused took her to his house at Chachai and accused went away . On the second day, father of accused Moorat Pandey came and took her to Katni. She has further stated that in the meanwhile when accused was taking her to Chachai he was telling her that he will marry with her and if she will not be ready, she will be beaten. She stated that her age was 13 years at the time of incident. Krishn Kumar Dwivedi (PW.12) Headmaster, has stated that Vinita was a student of his school and her date of birth was 20.11.1979 . According to school record he issued the certificate. Premvati (PW.1) has stated that her daughter was a student of sixth class and she was 13 years of age at the time of incident. When in the evening she did not come from the school, witness enquired the matter and found that Narendra took her daughter by cycle. Auto driver Madan told the witness that prosecutrix was taken up to bus stand by the accused. She stated that she lodged the report Ex.P/1. Naresh Sharma (PW.13) has stated that when he was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 31.3.93 at PS-Katni, Smt. Premvati Soni came at the police station and lodged verbal report on which he registered Crime No. 188/93 under Sections 363, 366 IPC vide Ex.P/1. Harikrishn Pandey (PW.3) has stated that birth certificate of prosecutrix is Ex.P/5, photo copy of which is Ex.P/5-A in which date of birth of prosecutrix was mentioned as 20.11.1978. 7. Harikrishn Pandey (PW.3) has stated that birth certificate of prosecutrix is Ex.P/5, photo copy of which is Ex.P/5-A in which date of birth of prosecutrix was mentioned as 20.11.1978. 7. Learned Counsel for Appellant has submitted that there is difference of one year in the Court statements of Harikrishn Pandey (PW.3) and Krishn Kumar Dwivedi (PW.12) the headmaster of the school. Even if, according to certificate (P.5) date of birth is 20.11.78, then too at the time of incident prosecutrix was below 18 years of age so minority of the prosecutrix is very much proved. 8. R.D. Uike (PW.11) Inspector has stated that on 1.4.93 he recovered the prosecutrix vide Ex.P/3; he arrested the accused vide Ex.P/4 and gave the custody of prosecutrix to her parents vide Ex.P/10. According to Premnarayan (PW.4) Vinita was recovered by the police went vide Ex.P/3. According to Vijay Kumar (PW.2) prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of accused-Appellant Narendra alias Pappu and he was arrested vide Ex.P/4. Though Madan Kumar (PW.5), Jitendra Kumar (PW.6), Ballu (PW.7) and Pappu Dwivedi @ Pammu (PW.8) do not support the version of prosecution, but the prosecution case remains undented. Kishore (PW.10) has stated that when girl was searched it was revealed that it was Appellant who took her away. 9. Undisputedly, the girl was minor at the time of incident and there is no ground for false implication. Learned trial Court has very well appreciated the evidence and has rightly come to the conclusion that accused committed offence punishable under Sections 363 and IPC. However, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that as the accused was 24 years of age at the time of incident and more than 17 years have already been passed from the date of incident, accused Appellant was in custody for a total period of about 11 months and 23 days, Appellant has suffered mental agony and financial loss substantially as such there is no justification in sending him back to the jail. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. Accused Appellant is punished for the period already undergone by him. However, no interference is made in sentence of fine. If the fine amount is not deposited, Appellant to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for each default. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. Accused Appellant is punished for the period already undergone by him. However, no interference is made in sentence of fine. If the fine amount is not deposited, Appellant to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for each default. The Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are ordered to be discharged on the condition that he should deposit the fine amount.