Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/6728/2019 of RAKESH NAMDEO Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6728 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
RAKESH NAMDEO S/O SANTOSH NAMDEO, AGEDABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O INFRONT OF BIJARIJI TEMPLE CHOWK BAZAR, DISTRICTCHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SUKHNANDAN PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. POLICESTATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY MS. P. GHOSH - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed thefollowing:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order ofsentence 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 hasbeen convicted under Section 11/12 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergoone year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to further undergo R.I. forthree 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 to19.02.2019. He prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Statesupported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved theincident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellant underSection 11/12 of POCSO Act.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that the victim lodged the FIR against the appellant at PoliceStation Kotwali, District Chhatarpur on 29.01.2019 registered as CrimeNo.45/2019 under Section 11/12 of POCSO Act, 2012. After investigation, thepolice filed the charge-sheet. The prosecution examined 05 witnesses in supportof their case. PW-1 prosecutrix duly proved the evidence and narrated theincident and involvement of the present appellant in the offence. According tothe FIR and statement of the prosecutrix, the appellant was following herdespite clear indication of disinterest by her and ultimately, she was compelledto lodged the report. Her statement was duly supported by her mother PW-2and her father PW-3. The age of the prosecutrix was 17 years at the time ofincident and the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section11/12 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 learnedSpecial Judge and consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence underSection 11/12 of the POCSO Act is hereby upheld.
5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2019, 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 anypast criminal antecedents of the appellants on record. There is no minimumsentence has been prescribed under Section 11/12 of POCSO Act, I deem itproper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the periodwhich he has already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced.However, fine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5000/-. The appellant shalldeposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today. Theappellant 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.
Priya.P
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE