Ram Prasad vs State of M.P.

J.G. Chitre, J.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.12.90 at 1.30 p.m. the appellant was found naked on the body of prosecutrix Chunni, aged about 11 years who was also naked. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was attempting to commit rape on prosecutrix Chunni. The appellant was noticed by prosecution witnesses Walia (P.W. 2) and Kalu (P.W. 3) and thereafter appellant was caught. The appellant after being caught wanted to give some money to the prosecutrix and these witnesses for setting the said act done by him. After usual investigation the appellant was prosecuted. He pleaded not guilty for the offence for which he was prosecuted.

It is the submission of Shri Jain that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and, therefore, learned trial Judge should have acquitted him. Shri Sen, Dy. Govt. Advocate justified the order of conviction and sentence.

Prosecutor Chunni stated in her evidence that appellant caught her and thereafter mounted on her body and undressed her petticoat as well as his pant. As per her evidence, Walia, Kalu and Mangu came at the spot and thus, the appellant was caught. P.Ws. Walia and Kalu have supported the evidence of prosecutirx Chunni. Their evidence shows that they noticed that appellant was mounting on Chunni who was naked. Their evidence also shows that appellant had undressed the prosecutrix.

I do not accept the submission advanced by Shri Jain that the appellant should be acquitted because the evidence of prosecution Chunni has not been corroborated on material particulars by the evidence of P.Ws. Walia and Kalu. It is pertinent to note that Walia and Kalu are not related to Chunni at all. I do not find that witnesses Walia and Kalu are giving the evidence against the appellant only for the purpose of supporting the evidence of prosecutrix Chunni. I do not find any ulterior intention in their act of giving evidence. The learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly concluded that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. I do not find any error in the way in which the learned trial Judge has appreciated the evidence on record for the conclusion drawn by him.

Shri J.L. Jain submitted that the appellant be released from custody on the sentence which he has already undergone. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter or Juggoo v. State of M.P. (1988 2 M.P.W.N. 108 Note 67). The citation is a note. It is pertinent to note that the sentence which is to be inflicled on the appellant - accused has to be based on facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case the prosecutrix was a girl of some understanding. In the case on which Shri Jain has placed reliance the prosecutrix was aged 2-1/2 years of age. The appellant is 24 years of age. Therefore, he must have the feeling of satisfying his lust and, therefore, he has committed that act which is subject-matter of conviction and sentence. That may not have been case in the matter of Juggoo v. State (supra). Further more, in this matter the appellant has disregarded the human hood by offering money to the prosecutrix and those prosecution witnesses. The sentence which has been inflicted on the appellant is R.I. for five years. He has already undergone the sentence of three years. Therefore, I do not find any propriety of reducing the sentence in view of the circumstances mentioned above. Besides that the sentence needs to be deferent so as to give alarm to like minded persons.

Thus, I find that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is correct, proper and legal and calls for no interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed.