Ramchandra vs State Of MP

With consent of the parties, heard finally.

Against the finding of conviction of the appellant under section 354 and 323 of the IPC and sentence of 1 year RI with fine of Rs.500/- and 6

months RI respectively recorded by Special Judge (POCSO Act), 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain vide judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed in ST

No.487/2018, the appellant has come before this Court.

Prosecution case in brief is that on 24.03.2018 at about 09:30 PM in Love Kush Nagar, Ujjain, when the prosecutrix was cleaning utensils at her

home; the appellant reached there with a cake and placed it before her house and started making sexual gesture. When he was asked not to do so, he

with intent to outrage her modesty, caught her hand and asked her to celebrate his birthday with him. As she screamed, her mother Hema and brother

Rahul came out and got rid her from the his grip, but in their efforts to get the prosecutrix free, he scrambled with and caused injury on right thumb of

Rahul. He also threatened them to kill in case of filing of any report.

The matter was reported to the police on the same day, FIR no.222/2018 Ex.P/3 was registered at police station Neelganga Ujjain. The police sent

the prosecutrix and her brother Rahul for medical examination and obtaiend their reports Ex.P/1 and 2. No injury was found on the body of the

prosecutrix; while abrasion was found on right thumb of Rahul. The police visited the spot, prepared spot map Ex.P/4, the prosecutrix was produced

before the Judicial Magistrate and her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C was recorded, the accused was arrested (Ex.P/7). The police

obtained certificate regarding date of birth of the prosecutrix (copy of scholar register/certificate Ex.P/10-11) and also recorded statement of the

witnesses under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.

The appellant was charged under section 323, 354, 506 Part II and 509 of the IPC and section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. After the trial, he was

acquitted from all other charges except section 354 and 323 of the IPC and has been punished as stated in para no.1 above.

The appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgment of the learned trial Court is contrary to the law and facts available on

record. The learned trial Court has committed error in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution and in relying upon the statements of interested

witnesses and in discarding the defense version. There was enmity between the appellant and the complainant. Brother of the prosecutrix has stated

that he sustained injury on this body by sharp object, which is contrary to the medical report, therefore, the appellant is entitled for the acquittal.

Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

Before the trial Court, the prosecutrix PW/2 has deposed on oath that on the date of the incident, when she was cleaning utensils, the appellant

came and made sexual gestures. When he was asked not to do so, with intent to outrage her modesty he caught her hand. When she screamed, her

brother and mother came out to rescue her, he scrambled with them and caused injury to her brother Rahul. Rahul PW/4 and mother Hema PW/3

have supported her statement. All these three witnesses have remain intact even after cross-examination. Nothing contrary could be brought on

record to doubt the veracity of their statements. Further their statements find supports in the form of FIR, which was lodged on the same day just

within less than two hours and medical report prepared and proved by Dr.Sanjay Rana PW/1. Investigating officer, Sub Inspector R.C Dhaman and

Sub Inspector Chandani Gaur (PW/5-6) have also supported the contention of the prosecutrix and statement of these witnesses also could not be

shattered even after cross-examination.

Jankibai PW/7 proved the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 12.07.2010 on the basis of scholar register Ex.P/10 and the certificate issued by the

Principal, Government Primary School, Nanankheda Ujjain PW/11. The only challenge made by the appellant to both the statement as well as the

certificate and entry of the scholar register is based on admission of Janki Bai (PW/1) that no document regarding date of birth of the prosecutrix

were obtained at the time of her admission in the school but the entry of date of birth was made years back of the incident when there was no

intention to make a false entry. Atleast there is no evidence that at the time of admission of the prosecutrix in the school, there was any reason for her

parents to mention an incorrect date of birth for any gain in future, therefore, entry of scholar register Ex.P/10 or certificat Ex.P/11 cannot be

disbelieved. Both these documents established beyond doubt that at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was minor.

After carefully going through the statement of the witnesses examined and the documents proved by the prosecution before the trial Court, this

Court does not find any reason to doubt the conclusion of the learned trial Court. The order of trial Court is well merited, needs no interference. The

conclusion are well founded, leaves no scope for interference by this Court.

The appeal preferred by the appellant is bereft of merits, liable to be and is dismissed hereby.