CRA/8161/2018 of HARBHAJAN SINGH @ KALE SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against theimpugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2018passed by Sessions Judge, Singrauli Head Quarter Waidhan (M.P.) in SessionsTrial No.175/2014, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellantfor commission of offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and sentencedhim to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.2000/- respectively, with default stipulation.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the prosecutrix who is a girlaged about 16 years 1 month was kidnapped by one person Mukeer. Theappellant is stated to be driver of the Jeep, which was one of the variousvehicles used by the couple in the process. The prosecution case was that thesaid person Mukeer called the present appellant on telephone and thereafter theappellant came with Bolero Jeep, wherein the said person Mukeer forcefullymade the prosecutrix to sit in the Jeep. The Jeep thereafter dropped the coupleat Bus Stand and from Bus Stand the couple was going to Varanasi when in theway the Bus was got stopped by the family members of the prosecutrix and theprosecutrix was rescued.

3. Looking to the deposition of PW-1 who is the prosecutrix this much isfound to be proved that the appellant was driving the Jeep, which took thecouple till the Bus Stand. Even in the suggestion given to the prosecutrix in thecross examination, no such such suggestion has been given that the appellantwas not driving the Jeep. Thus, the involvement of the Jeep in dropping thecouple upto Bus Stand and the appellant driving the Jeep is found to be properand cannot be set-aside in appeal.

4. However, there are mitigating circumstances in the case the incident isalmost 10 years old. Further prosecutrix has stated in her cross-examination thatthe appellant did not use any force he simply came with the Jeep and even didnot alight from driving seat and never talked single word with the couple andupon reaching the Bus Stand he took his money and went away. He did not useany force nor gave any threat to the prosecutrix. The appellant has alreadyundergone 25 days of jail custody.

5. Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstance, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence of the appellant to one already undergone. However, thefine amount is enhanced to Rs.5000/- on both the counts to be paid within aperiod of three months from today.

6. 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 originalsentence would come into operation and appellants shall be taken into custodyor they would surrender themselves to serve the entire jail sentence of sixmonths as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.

7. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.

8. The bail bonds of the appellants/accused, if any, are discharged.

9. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for informationand necessary compliance.

10. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.

Vin**

(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE