Devkaran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22501 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Devkaran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 December, 2023

                                                              1
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
                                              ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 621 of 2015

                           BETWEEN:-
                           DEVKARAN S/O RAMCHANDAR BAIRAGI, AGED ABOUT
                           23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                           SUMRIYAHEDI, P.S. KHUJNER, DISTT. RAJGARH
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANT
                           (NONE FOR THE APPELLANT)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THRU. P.S. KHUJNER, DISTT. RAJGARH
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI AMIT RAWAL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

                                 T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                             JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. feeling aggrieved by the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangpur, District-Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No.345/2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo for a period of one year RI and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation.

2) The facts of the case are that the appellant accused was tried under Section 363, 366(A), 376(1), 506 Part-II and 344 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 on a matter arising out of First Information Report

registered in Police Station-Khujner, Dist. Rajgarh as Crime No.86/2014 regarding kidnapping of prosecutrix, aged 13 years (PW-4) in the intervening night of 26.05.2014 and committing sexual assault till 6th September, 2014 and causing criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement of the victim.

3) Appellant/accused abjured the guilt and the prosecution examined mother of the victim as PW-1, father of the victim as PW-2, the victim as PW- 4, Dr. Meena Khare (PW-3), Head Constable Amritlal (PW-5), Shri Bharatsingh Nagar (PW-6) and investigation officer Shri R.D. Keer as PW-7. The trial Court acquitted the appellant/accused from the charges under Section 366-A, 376(1), 506 Part-II, 344 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and convicted

the appellant/accused under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to one year RI and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation.

4) Challenging the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred on the ground that the trial Court has ignored the discrepancy in the statement made by the complainant and other witnesses. The evidence regarding the age of the victim has not been appreciated properly and committed error in concluding the age of the prosecutrix below 18 years.

5) Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the conviction and sentence.

6) Heard with the aid of learned Public Prosecutor Shri Amit Rawal and perused the record.

7) Offence of kidnapping is against the parents of the minor female. The act of the appellant/accused cannot condoned referring to the evidence of PW- 4, who has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The testimony of mother (PW-1), father (PW-2) and Bharatsingh Nagar (PW-6) established that victim was below the age of 18 years on the date of incident i.e. 27.05.2014. The

findings in para-17 & 35 of the judgment are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and they do not call for interference and the conviction of the appellant/accused under Section 363 of IPC does not call for interference and is hereby affirmed.

8) The trial Court has recorded the finding in para-41 of the judgment that appellant/accused had no criminal antecedent. The perusal of the record shows that from the date of arrest i.e. 09.09.2014 till 16.05.2015, the appellant has been in custody. Thus, the appellant/accused has undergone the period of eight months and seven days. Looking to the overall circumstances, it is a fit case to reduce the sentence of the appellant/accused to the period undergone by the accused in custody i.e. 8 months 7 days. So this appeal is allowed partly and the sentence of the appellant/accused under Section 363 of IPC is modified to the period of eight months seven days i.e. period already undergone by the appellant accused. The fine amount is maintained.

9) This criminal appeal is allowed in part.

10) Record of the court below along with a copy of this order be sent forthwith for information and compliance.

(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE soumya