Devendra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.06.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.169/2014 by the VIIth ASJ, District Sagar whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 354 (A) (1) (ii) and 341 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in the first count, while SI for one month in the second count, along with default stipulation.

Case of the prosecution in short, is that, 07.08.2014, at 02.30 pm, the prosecutrix along with her sister was going to the house of her maternal uncle Kailash as she reached near Saraswati School, appellant came and obstructed the prosecutrix with bad intention and kissed two to three times on her cheeck and thereafter, uttered filthy words and threatened her to kill if she reported the matter to police. The incident was witnessed by Pooja and Naresh. When the prosecutrix reached at the house of her maternal uncle, she narrated the whole story and went to Police Station Kotwali to lodge the report (Ex-P-1). Crime No.232/2014 was registered against the appellant. Prosecutrix at the time of alleged incident was below 18 years. After investigation, chargesheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354-A (1) (i), 294 and 506-II of IPC and under Sections 7 and 8 of the POSCO Act. Learned trial Court framed the charge against the appellant 341, 354-A, 294 and 506-II of IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the POSCO Act. Prosecution examined (PW-1) prosecutrix, (PW-2) Naresh as eye witness (PW-3) D.K. Sahu on the point of date of birth. (PW-4) Pooja as eye witness (PW-5) Shyamlal. (PW-6) ASI S.C. Shrivastava, who lodged the report Ex-P-1. (PW-7) Surendra Raikwar and (PW-8) Kailash, maternal uncle of the prosecutrix. On examining the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, he denied all the allegations and pleaded innocent, but not examined any witness in his defence. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 28.06.2017 acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC and under Sections 7 read with Section 8 of the POSCO Act, 2012 and convicted the appellant as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. There was previous enmity between the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix and the appellant. The prosecutrix lodged the FIR on the instigation of her maternal uncle. With these submissions he prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the trial Court has considered the evidence and after appreciation of the same, has awarded proper sentence and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

After hearing both the parties, perused the record of the trial Court and the statements of the witnesses.

(PW-1) Prosecutrix deposed that while she was going along with her sister Pooja, as she reached near Saraswati School, the appellant obstructed her and embarrassed her and kiss two and three times on her cheek and threatened if she reported the matter, he will kill her. She lodged the report Ex-P-1 promptly. In para 2 she categorically stated that at the time of incident appellant was under the influence of liquor. (PW-4) Pooja supported the statement of the prosecutrix. She categorically stated that accused embarrassed the prosecutrix with bad intention he kissed the cheek of the prosecutrix. Another witness (PW-8) Kailash maternal uncle of the prosecutrix stated that (PW-1) prosecutrix and Pooja stated the story to him.

The statement of (PW-1) prosecutrix is supported by (PW-4) Pooja. In the cross-examination of both witnesses, there is no maternal infirmity or discrepancy found. Further (PW-1) prosecutrix promptly lodged the report Ex-P-1 without delay. (PW-6) ASI S.C. Shrivastava, supported that on the date of alleged incident i.e. on 7.8.2014, he was posted in Police Station Kotwali, the prosecutrix lodged the report against the appellant and he registered the FIR (Ex-P-1). In the cross-examination, he admitted that prosecutrix came along with her sister (PW-4) Pooja for lodging the report.

Nothing comes in the cross-examination of both the witnesses that they are having rivalry against the appellant. The statements of the (PW-1) prosecutrix and (PW-4) Pooja is reliable and trustworthy. The appellant has not produced any witness in his defence.

Considering the aforesaid this Court not found any infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial Court. Consequently, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court under Sections 354 (A) (1) (ii) and 341 of IPC is hereby affirmed. Appeal stands dismissed.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already suffered the custodial sentence awarded by the trial Court and he has also deposited the fine amount. As per letter dated 07.01.2019, of Superintendent, Central Jail, Sagar, the appellant-Devendra Ahirwar has been released from jail on 26.11.2018.

In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere on the point of sentence.

Let record of the trial Court be send back along with the copy of the judgment.