[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikrant @ Vikky vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6521
1 CRA-4299-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4299 of 2019
VIKRANT @ VIKKY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Chakarvarti, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Amit Singh Baghel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the present appellant under Section 374
of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 04.05.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012, (M.P.) in Special Case No.
300092/2016 whereby the present appellant has been convicted
under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. and fine
of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Briefly, the prosecution's case is that on August 14, 2016, at around 9.30
a.m., the victim went out to relieve herself. At that time, a boy got out of a
car from behind, gagged her, and forced her into the car. She found Vikky @
Vikram Singh, and another boy, Rakesh Dhurve sitting in the car. Both of
them took her to Rakesh Dhurve's sister's house in Chhindwara. Rakesh,
with malicious intent, held her hand, saying, "You are mine, I will marry
you, " and told her, "Don't cry, I will drop you home. "Rakesh Dhurve's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6521
2 CRA-4299-2019
sister kept her safe and told Rakesh to drop her off at her home. Rakesh had
taken her to his sister's house with the intention of disgracing her, but her
sister, acting wisely, kept her safe. Her family was having doubt over
Rakesh Dhurve, so they found his mobile number and called him in the
morning. Then Rakesh brought her home and dropped there. The vehicle in
which Rakesh and Vicky took the victim to Chhindwara was bearing
Registration No. CG 07 ZG 5120. He had told his mother Sariya Yadav and
brothers Shivram and Rajaram about the incident. An FIR vide Crime
No.234/2016 was registered at Police Station-Chandameta, District-
Chhindwara under Sections 363, 366A & 354 of IPC and Section 8 of
POCSO Act, 2012 against the present appellant-Vikrant @ Vikky.
3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the
competent Court, which, on its turn, committed the case to the Court of
Sessions and from where it was received by the trial Court for trial.
4. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the
charge sheet framed charges against appellant for the offences punishable
under Sections 363, 366-A & 354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act,
2012, which he denied and requested for the trial.
5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many
as 08 witnesses, namely, Smt. S.K. Batra (PW-1), Smt. Sarita (PW-2),
Shirram Yadav (PW-3), Ku. Nisha Yadav (PW-4), Komal Diwakar (PW-5),
Smt. Suman Sallam (PW-6), Kavita Nagwanshi (PW-7) and R.L. Dawne
(PW-8) and placed Ex.P/1(c) to P/16 and Ex.D/1 to D/2, the documents on
record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6521
3 CRA-4299-2019
6. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence
came to hold that the charges under Sections 366-A & 354 of IPC are not
found proved against the accused/appellant, therefore, acquitted him from the
aforesaid charges. However, since the charge under Section 363 was found
proved against the present appellant, therefore, the trial Judge has convicted
him and passed the sentence as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment.
In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by appellant.
7. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant/accused has submitted
that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellant for the
aforesaid offence. As regards sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for
the appellant that the present appellant was 20 years of age at the time of the
incident, which occurred on 04.08.2016 and since 10 years he is facing
agony of the trial. It is also submitted that he remained in custody for 17 days
during the trial. Learned trial Court has convicted him under Section 363 of
IPC for two years of R.I. with fine, but he has no criminal history and
remained cooperative during the trial and before this Court. It is also
submitted that in a case of Vijay Kumar Nandram Basor Vs. State of M.P.
reported in 1998(2) M.P.L.J. 7 , a coordinate Bench of this Court has in a
similar case under Section 363 of IPC when the accused had been awarded
conviction of three years RI has reduced the sentence to the period already
undergone by him. Here in this case also, keeping in view the tender age of
present appellant at the time of offence, no criminal antecedent of him and
the fact that he is facing agony of trial since 2016 for a period of more than 9
years so also his conduct which is to cooperate with the Court during trial,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6521
4 CRA-4299-2019
h i s sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone while
enhancing the fine amount suitably.
8. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but he
has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the
record, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on
record and rightly convicted the present appellant under Section 363 of IPC,
hence, conviction of present appellant under 363 of IPC needs no
interference.
11. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the 20 years of age of the present appellant at time of incident of year
2016, his conduct of cooperation during trial, he is first offender and keeping
in view the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of
the view that the ends of justice would meet if while reducing the jail
sentence of present appellant to the period already undergone by him, the
fine is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- under Section 363 of IPC.
12. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the appellant
under Section 363 of IPC, jail sentence of present appellant is reduced to the
period already undergone by him and the fine amount is enhanced from
Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/-, which shall be deposited by him within a period of
two months from today, failing which the appellant will have to suffer the
sentence as awarded by the trial Court. The fine amount, if any already
deposited by the appellant be adjusted against the aforesaid amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6521
5 CRA-4299-2019
fine. The entire amount of fine deposited by the present appellant be paid to
the complainant/prosecutrix as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
13. The present appellant is on bail, his bail bond shall stand discharged.
14. The order of the trial Court pertaining to disposal of the property is
hereby affirmed.
15. Let record of the trial Court along with a copy of this order be sent
back to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
16. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
KPS
