Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Vanshkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1608 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
RAHUL VANSHKAR S/O NANDLAL VANSHKAR, AGED
ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O HOUSE
NO. E-18 ARJUN NAGAR 1250, DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI K.K. RAJAK - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE P.S. T.T.NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VI CTI M A S/O NOT KNOWN NOT MENTION
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANOOP SONKAR - PANEL LAWYER )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2019
passed by XXXIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Session Trial
No.312/2018, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for
commission of offence under Section 11/12 of POCSO Act and sentenced him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the incident had occurred on
20.03.2018 the complainant was alone her house at Bhopal then at about 11:00
A.M the appellant who resides in neighborhood knocked on her door and when
she opened the door, he entered in her house and told her that he loves her and
offered her that they should go and visit some place. When a lady residing
neighborhood knocked on the door for some work, appellant is said to have hit
her and then fled away.
3. Initially, the case was registered under Section 342, 354-A, 451 and
Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, however after trial the Court has convicted the
appellant under Section 354-A and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act.
4. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of
the prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Complainant, PW-3
Rinki Verma, who is mother of the complainant, and other witnesses. This
Court has carefully gone through the evidence of the material witnesses and eye-
witnesses.
5. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is
found that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of the
accused-appellant are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in proving
the case against the accused-appellant. There is nothing in cross examination of
the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus, there is nothing in
the said findings of the trial court that can be said to be erroneous or perverse,
warranting interference by this Court in Appellate jurisdiction.
6. Thus, the conviction of the appellant as ordered by the trial court is
hereby upheld.
7. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be
taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The appellant is
stated to be young boy aged about 21 years on the date of occurrence and he is
stated to have given his love proposal to the complainant. Further parties are
residing in neighborhood of each other and even moved a compromise
application before the trial Court, but as the offences were non-compoundable,
the trial Court was unable to allow the compromise. There is no minimum
sentence under Section 354-A or Section 11/12 of POCSO Act. The incident
took place in the year 2018 and accused/appellant has faced trial and this appeal
is pending since 2021, the accused/appellant has been under trial or appearing
before the Court as condition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing
has come on record regarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of
sentence during the long period since the prosecution, trial and appeal are
pending. Thus, this Court deems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellant to
the period already undergone by him (seven days) and to enhance the fine
amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/-.
8. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
i s maintained. However, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for the period he has already undergone (seven days), subject to
depositing the further fine amount of Rs.5,000/- within a period of three months
from today.
9. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court is
not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the original
sentence would come into operation and appellant shall be taken into custody
or he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence of one year as
awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
10. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
11. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
12. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
13. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
Vin**
