AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conviction,Sentence
Under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code,"Fine of Rs.1000, in default of payment thereof, 3 months
rigorous imprisonment
Under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code,"Fine of Rs.1000, in default of payment thereof, 3 months
rigorous imprisonment
Under Section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code,"3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000, in
default of payment thereof, 6 months rigorous
imprisonment
Under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code,"10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000, in
default of payment thereof, 2 years rigorous imprisonment
Under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth ‘the Pocso
Act’)","10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- in
default of payment thereof, 2 years rigorous imprisonment
,All the jail sentences are directed to run concurrently
stopping the Appellant to do so then the Appellant threatened the victim boy of his life. He further deposed that thereafter Akriti (PW13) reached,
there and knocked the door of the room on which the Appellant opened the door and ran away from there.,
Vishnu (PW6) and Akriti (PW13) have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Pyarelal (PW2) and Meenabai (PW7) are,
father and mother of the victim boy respectively. Both deposed that the incident was told to them first by Suresh (PW5) and Vishnu (PW6) and,
thereafter the victim boy (PW1) also told them about the incident.,
Virendra (PW3), who is elder brother of the victim boy and submitted the written complaint (Ex.P3) on 4.7.2015 deposed that on the date of",
incident he had gone to Village Sipat at the house of his maternal uncle. Next day, he returned his village then he was told about the incident by Suresh",
(PW5) and Vishnu (PW6) and thereafter the victim boy (PW1). Thereafter, he asked about the same from his father Pyarelal (PW2) also. Pyarelal",
(PW2) also told him about the incident. Thereafter, he again went to Village Sipat at the house of his maternal uncle and told him about the incident.",
Next day, he returned his village and made the written report (Ex.P3).",
Dr. B.P. Kurre (PW4) conducted medical examination of the Appellant and submitted his report (Ex.P7) in which he reported that no injury was,
found in the private part of the Appellant. Dr. S.K. Sinha (PW10) medically examined the victim boy and submitted his report (Ex.P10) in which he,
reported that no injury was found in any part of the body of the victim.,
Head Constable Sher Singh (PW9) is the witness who registered the FIR (Ex.P4) on the basis of the written complaint (Ex.P3). Inspector,
Vinodini Tandi (PW8) and Deputy Superintendent of Police N.L. Dhritlahre (PW14) are the witnesses who conducted investigation in this case. Amrit,
Pali (PW12) is the teacher who provided the Dakhil-Kharij Panji relating to age of the victim boy.,
On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that though Vishnu (PW6) and Akriti (PW13) have not supported the case of the",
prosecution and turned hostile, the victim boy (PW1) and Suresh (PW5) both child witnesses have supported the entire case of the prosecution.",
During their detailed cross-examination also they remained firm. There is nothing in their cross-examination on the basis of which it can be said that,
they would have been tutored. Though some contradictions and omissions have occurred in their statements, they are not material. It is true that the",
victim boy did not shout on the spot and immediately after the incident he did not disclose about the same at his house, there was a threat to him given",
by the Appellant of his life on disclosing about the incident and age of the victim boy at that time was only 8 years. Therefore, the judgment delivered",
in Bhagwan Singh case (supra) is not applicable to this case. In Bhagwan Singh case (supra), the eyewitness of the case was a major woman and",
wife of the deceased. She had got ample opportunities to disclose about the incident but she did not disclose and therefore her statement was not,
found to be trustworthy. In the case in hand, the victim boy was aged about 8 years only and he was threatened of his life on disclosing the incident",
and therefore he did not shout on the spot and did not disclose about the incident immediately thereafter at his house, appears to be natural.",
With regard to delay in lodging the written complaint (Ex.P3), in his Court statement, Virendra (PW3), elder brother of the victim boy deposed that",
on the date of incident he was at Village Sipat at the house of his maternal uncle. Next day, when he returned his village then he came to know about",
the incident. Thereafter, he again went to Village Sipat at the house of his maternal uncle to get suggestion. Next day, he returned his village and",
made the written report (Ex.P3). The victim boy was aged about 8 years only and therefore looking to his age and the nature of the offence if the,
report was lodged belatedly after discussions between the family members, it is natural.",
With regard to the land dispute between both the families, no document has been placed before the Trial Court by the Appellant. During pendency",
of this appeal, the Appellant has submitted a copy of the notice (Annexure A4) which shows that Revenue Case No.38A/14-15 (Mahabali v.",
Harprasad) is pending in the Court of Nayab Tahsildar, Sipat. Even if it is considered to be true it cannot be said to be natural that for this reason only",
the Appellant would be falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, in this regard also, I do not find any substance in the argument advanced by Learned",
Counsel for the Appellant.,
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.",