Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 637 (MP)

Rajaram v. State of M. P.

2019-09-05

S.K.AWASTHI

body2019
ORDER 1. This criminal appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “The Code”) is preferred against the judgment dated 4.6.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Agar, District Shahjapur in Sessions Trial No. 153/2013, whereby the appellants have been convicted as under: Conviction under Sec. Sentence Fine amount Imprisonment in lieu of fine 3 /4 of POCSO Act, 2012 10 years R.I. Rs.5,000/- 1 year R.I. 363 of IPC, 1860 3 years R.I. Rs.1,000/- 6 months R.I. 366 of IPC, 1860 3 years R.I. Rs.1,000/ 6 months R.I. 370 of IPC, 1860 5 years R.I. Rs.1,000/- 6 months R.I. 344 of IPC, 1860 1 year R.I. Rs.1,000/- 3 months R.I. 372 of IPC, 1860 10 years R.I. Rs.2,000/- 1 year R.I. 2. The facts leading to the present case are that on 19.3.2013, prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Agar that on 15/01/2013, she along with her friends had gone to Ujjain Mahakaal Temple. After darshan, on 16.1.2013 they all left to Chhindwara by train, however, the prosecutrix missed the train as she went to get water bottle from the station. Present appellants Rajaram and his wife Bhuribai met her in Ujjain station, by giving assurance to safely send her back to Chhindwara, they took her to their house, where she was confined in a room for about more than 1 ½ months. Thereafter, they sold her to one Tejaram, who took her to village Kulmadi near Agar in bus and kept her in room and committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that when Tejaram goes out of his house, his mother would keep watch of the prosecutrix and would not allow the prosecutrix to talk with anyone. On 19.3.2013, she escaped from that house and came to the police-station through the forest and filed the complaint. On that basis FIR bearing crime No. 117/2013 was registered against the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 344, 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC, 1860 read with section 3/4, 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the Act, 2012'). During investigation police arrested Tejaram, his mother, sister and the present appellants. Prosecutrix and Tejaram were sent for medical examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for the offences tabled herein above. 3. During investigation police arrested Tejaram, his mother, sister and the present appellants. Prosecutrix and Tejaram were sent for medical examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for the offences tabled herein above. 3. Appellants abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, they have not examined any witnesses in their defence. 4. Trial Court, after considering the submissions advance by the counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the table in para 1. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the findings given by the trial Court are neither legal nor proper. The trial Court has wrongly believed the statement of prosecution witnesses who are interested, inimical and/or infirmed witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his submission only to one ground. He expressly gave up his challenge to the findings of the Court below so far as is the conviction of the appellant is concerned under sections 363, 366, 370, 344, 372 of IPC, 1860. In other words, the learned counsel for the appellant accepted the finding of conviction and the sentences awarded to him on his conviction 363, 366, 370, 344, 372 of IPC, 1860 on merits, apparently, finding no merit therein, he challenged the quantum of punishment (10 years R.I) awarded to the appellant under Section 370 of IPC, 1860 and section 3 /4 of 'the Act, 2012' alone. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants are facing the trial for almost 6 years and have already completed more than 5 years in custody. The appellants are the first offenders and they have no criminal antecedents. The appellants have assured that they will not involve in such criminal activities in future, therefore, counsel prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced suitably and fine amount may be enhanced. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellants on their conviction does not deserve any leniency from this Court as they have failed to make out any case for modification of the sentence awarded to them. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case. 9. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case. 9. Though the appellants have not made any attempt to assail the finding of his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the findings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perused the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no case is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merit looking to the fact that commission of alleged offence by the appellants is found proved on the basis of statement of prosecutrix (P.W.17), Ramesh (P.W.1), Narayan (P.W.5), Balu (P.W.7) which is also corroborated by the F.I.R (Ex.P/8). I therefore, upheld the findings of conviction under Sections 344, 372, 363, 366, 370 of IPC, 1860 read with Section 3 /4 of 'the Act, 2012', recorded by the trial Court. 10. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, from the perusal of the provision of Section 3 /4 of 'the Act, 2012' and 370 of IPC, 1860, it appears that minimum sentence of 7 years is prescribed under these sections, therefore, looking to the fact that the appellants are the first offender and have no criminal antecedents, they have assured that they will not involve in such criminal activities in future, the sentence awarded to the each of the appellant is reduced to a period of 7 years under section 370 of IPC and Section 3 /4 of 'the Act, 2012' each and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- under each Sections. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the appellants shall suffer six months R.I. 11. The Registry of this Court is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant against appellantsRajaram and Bhuribai. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Courts below along with record for information and compliance. 12. Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No.1238/2015 is partly allowed.