Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satyanarayan @ Satya Bansal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7897 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
SATYANARAYAN @ SATYA BANSAL S/O HINCHHAL
BANSAL, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR VILLAGE GODAHI P.S BAHRI SIDHI AT
PRESENT GILAI BASTI JAYANT P.S. VINDHYANAGAR
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
VINDHYANAGAR DISTT. SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI YOGENRA DAS YADAV - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2), the appellant has
challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.09.2018
passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO) Singrauli in Special Case
No.300045/2014 whereby, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant
under Section 12 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year
with fine of Rs.5000/- in default the further R.I. for 2 months. Also convicted
under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6-6 months with
fine of Rs.500-500 in default 1-1 month further R.I.
3. On 23.10.2014, the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station
Vindhyanagar, Singrauli which was registered as Crime No.136/2014 under
Section 354, 294, 323, 506 of IPC and Section 11 read with Section 12 of
POCSO Act, 2012. During the investigation, police arrested the appellant on
24.10.2014 and he remained in custody till 10.11.2014 thereafter, he was once
again sent to judicial custody on 01.06.2017 and remained in custody till
14.06.2017. Police filed charge-sheet against the appellant. Prosecution
examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of the prosecution case. Learned
Special Judge after recording the statement of prosecution witnesses and after
examining the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by the judgment dated
25.09.2014 convicted the appellant under Section 12 of POCSO Act and
Section 323 of IPC for two counts and sentenced stated as above.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that false
report was lodged against the appellant due to dispute in respect of
construction of a hut. He pointed out paragraph 3 of the statement of PW-2
(prosecutrix) wherein she accepted that the appellant was stopping the
prosecutrix and her mother from construction of the hut and, therefore, there
were some dispute between the parties and due to the same, the FIR was
lodged.
5. He pointed out that the mother of the prosecutrix PW-3 has also
accepted in respect of the dispute recording the construction of hut. PW-4 and
PW-5 did not support the prosecution case therefore, in view of the admissions
of the prosecutrix and her mother it is establish on record that the FIR was
lodged due to the earlier dispute occurred in respect of the construction of hut
by the mother of the prosecutrix. He also pointed out that from bare reading of
the statement of the PW-2 & PW-3, no offence is made out under Section 12
of POCSO Act.
6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent-State submitted that the learned Special Judge has considered the
statements of the witnesses and after due appreciation of evidence has
convicted the appellant and the appeal be dismissed.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, it appears that except PW-2 & PW-3, no independent witnesse has
supported the prosecution case but the statement of PW-2 & PW-3 cannot be
discarded only on the ground that there was some dispute in respect of the
construction of hut. Learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant
under Section 12 of POCSO Act as well as under Section 323 of IPC. The
judgment is based on due appreciation of evidence and does not require any
interference by this Court.
8. However, looking to the fact that no minimum sentence is prescribed
under Section 323 or under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The appellant
remained in custody for 30 days during the trial. At the time of incident, the
appellant was young boy of 23 years old. The incident took place in the year
2014. The prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedent or
conviction of the appellant on record.
9. In view of the above, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the
appellant to the extent that he has already undergone and enhance the fine. The
appellant will deposit further Rs.10,000/- towards the fine which will be paid to
the prosecutrix as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., the fine amount
will be paid within 2 months from today. The jail sentence is reduced to the
extent of the period which he has already undergone. The appellant is on bail
and his bail bond and personal bond be discharged. The record of the trial
Court be sent back along with the copy of the judgment
10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
(VINAY SARAF)
V. JUDGE
Shub
