Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Namdeo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6728 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
RAKESH NAMDEO S/O SANTOSH NAMDEO, AGED
ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O IN
FRONT OF BIJARIJI TEMPLE CHOWK BAZAR, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SUKHNANDAN PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. POLICE
STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. P. GHOSH - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), District Chhatarpur
(M.P.) in Special S.T. No.15/2019, on 01.08.2019 whereby the appellant has
been convicted under Section 11/12 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo
one year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to further undergo R.I. for
three months.
2 . The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,
the appellant Rakesh Namdeo remained in custody from 17.02.2019 to
19.02.2019. He prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
3 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the
incident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellant under
Section 11/12 of POCSO Act.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, it appears that the victim lodged the FIR against the appellant at Police
Station Kotwali, District Chhatarpur on 29.01.2019 registered as Crime
No.45/2019 under Section 11/12 of POCSO Act, 2012. After investigation, the
police filed the charge-sheet. The prosecution examined 05 witnesses in support
of their case. PW-1 prosecutrix duly proved the evidence and narrated the
incident and involvement of the present appellant in the offence. According to
the FIR and statement of the prosecutrix, the appellant was following her
despite clear indication of disinterest by her and ultimately, she was compelled
to lodged the report. Her statement was duly supported by her mother PW-2
and her father PW-3. The age of the prosecutrix was 17 years at the time of
incident and the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section
11/12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced as stated herein above. After
examining the statement of the witnesses and other material available on record,
I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned
Special Judge and consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence under
Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act is hereby upheld.
5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year
2019, the appellant remained in jail from 17.2.2019 to 19.2.2019 and he was 19
years young boy at the time of incident and the prosecution has not brought any
past criminal antecedents of the appellants on record. There is no minimum
sentence has been prescribed under Section 11/12 of POCSO Act, I deem it
proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the period
which he has already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced.
However, fine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5000/-. The appellant shall
deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today. The
appellant is on bail, his personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
5. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Priya.P
