Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naresh Chaudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2022
Author: Anjuli Palo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
ON THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 326 of 2015
Between:-
SANJU SONKAR S/O SUBHASH SONKAR,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, SHARDA CHOWK ANNA MOHALLA
NEAR JHIRIYA WALE BABA P.S. GARHA
DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PRABHAKAR SINGH, ADVOCATE )
And
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
P.S. GARHA JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SHIKHA BAGHEL, PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2468 of 2014
Between:-
NARESH CHAUDHARY S/O SHIVCHARAN CHAUDHARY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NEAR LAKHA TAYAR BADANPUR PAHADHI
BEDI NAGAR GARHA JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUSHILA PALIWAL, ADVOCATE (AMICUS CURIAE)
And
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
P.S. GARHA JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SHIKHA BAGHEL, PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE )
2 CRA No. 326 of 2015
CRA No. 2468 of 2014
JUDGMENT
As these appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure by the apellants/accused persons
being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2014 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Session Trial No.
576/2012, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this
common judgment.
2. Appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :
Section/Act Sentence Fine Default
stipulation
376(2)(G) of the Indian 10 years rigorous Rs. 5,000/- 1 year rigorous
Penal Code imprisonment imprisonment
506 Part II of the Indian 6 months rigorous Rs. 500/- 02 months
Penal Code imprisonment (two counts) rigorous
(two counts) (two counts) imprisonment
341 of the Indian Penal 01 month rigorous - -
Code imprisonment
3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 14.06.2012 at about
4:30 pm, the complainant/prosecutrix, aged about 15-16 years, went
to Sharda Mandir situated at Madan Mahal along with a friend-Arjun
Mallah (PW-3). At that time the appellants came there and on the
point of knife, threatened them, extorted money and forcefully
committed rape with the complainant/prosecutrix. Thereafter, the
complainant and her friend went to the Police. Police registered
Crime No. 519/2012 against the appellants for offence punishable
under Sections 341, 506, 393, 376(2)(g) and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. They reached the spot and prepared spot map (Ex. P/2) and
sent the complainant/prosecutrix for medical examination. After filing
CRA No. 2468 of 2014
of charge-sheet, charges under Sections 341/34, 506-B, 393/34 and
376(2)(g) were framed against the appellants and trial was conducted.
The trial Court held the appellants guilty and convicted them as
mentioned above.
4. The impugned judgment has been challenged by the
appellants before this Court on the grounds that the trial Court has
failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its right perspective.
Arjun Mallah (PW-3) has not supported the case of the prosecution.
Neither any money was extorted nor rape was committed by the
appellants. Further, the doctor has also not supported the case of the
prosecution. Appellants have also taken the defence that they have
been falsely implicated by the complainant due to previous enmity.
5. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the appellants have served more than half of
the sentence. As per the jail report dated 04.05.2019, appellant
Naresh Chaudhary has served total 8 years and 3 months of sentence
including remission. Learned counsel for the appellants contended
that the sentence of the appellants may be modified to the extent
to the period already undergone by them .
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
7. Although, the appellants have undergone more than half of
the sentence, however, the conviction of the appellants is based on the
testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) which has been corroborated by
the testimony of eye-witness Arjun Mallah (PW-3). At the time of
CRA No. 2468 of 2014
incident, he was present with the complainant/prosecutrix. They have
strongly stated that the appellants stopped them by threatening.
Appellants were armed with knife. The prosecutrix (PW-1) and her
friend Arjun Mallah (PW-3) were alone at a lonely place and were
helpless. Appellants had threatened to kill or hurt them. There is no
inconsistency in their testimony.
8. The contention of the appellants that they have been
falsely implicated due to previous enmity does not form any basis.
The entire case of the prosecution is proved by the statement of PW-1
and PW-3 which is duly supported by the medical evidence. Dr.
Indumati Vishwakarma (PW-8) who examined the prosecutrix, proved
that the hymen was old torn. In the FSL, sperms were found in the
vaginal swab of the prosecutrix.
9. Appellants threatened the complainant/prosecutrix and
Arjun Mallah (PW-3) on the point of knife and compelled them to
surrender as they were alone at a lonely. They also committed rape
with the minor prosecutrix who was aged about 15 years.
10. In view of the evidence on record as discussed
hereinabove, in my opinion, the trial Court has appreciated the entire
evidence available on record in its right perspective and rightly held
the appellants guilty for committing offence under Sections 376(2)(g),
506 Part II (two counts) and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and
awarded proper sentence. I do not find it a fit case to modify the
sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone by them.
CRA No. 2468 of 2014
11. T he appeals, being devoid of any merit, are hereby
dismissed.
12. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for
information and compliance alongwith its record.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE
vidya
Digitally signed
by SREEVIDYA
Date: 2022.02.03
15:08:09 +05'30'
