State of M.P. vs Arjun

D.K. Paliwal, J.—Heard.

The appellant-State has preferred this appeal u/s 379 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the sentence passed by 1st A.S.J., Morena in S.T. No. 213/2012, whereby convicting the respondent u/s 363 of IPC and sentenced to the period of custody already undergone by him (one month & twenty three days) and pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo two months SI.

According to the prosecution case, the victim alongwith her sister has gone to Beauty Parlor, Mill Area, Morena. Her sister was sitting inside the Beauty Parlor, someone took away the victim. The report was lodged. The respondent-accused has telephoned the complainant and his brother on mobile that the victim is with him. During investigation the victim was traced and after completion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed and the case was committed to the trial Court.

Learned trial Court has convicted the respondent and sentenced as mentioned above. Being dissatisfied with the sentence learned Panel Lawyer submits that the learned trial Court has not imposed the adequate sentence looking to the fact that the victim is a minor girl and the offence affect the society as well, therefore, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the respondent be punished accordingly.

Learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.

I have perused the record. The learned trial Court in para 21 of its judgment has mentioned the reasons for imposing the sentence. It is mentioned that the offence has been committed because there were affairs in between the victim and the applicant and also that the respondent-accused has not compelled the victim to have sexual intercourse with him. The respondent-accused is aged about 21 years young boy and there is no previous conviction against him. During trial respondent-accused remained in custody for about one month and twenty three days. Considering all these facts the respondent-accused has been sentenced. In para 9 the findings have been recorded that at the time of incident victim was aged 16 years and is a student of 10th class. It seems that some love letters have been filed in defence. The victim denied the writing of those letters.

Considering that there is no evidence that respondent-accused compelled the victim to accompany him. The letters show that the victim remained with the respondent-accused for a considerable period and has visited to various places. There is no previous conviction against the respondent-accused, the respondent-accused is aged 21 years, in the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has committed no error in imposing the sentence and no ground is made out for enhancement of the sentence. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid the appeal is dismissed.