Inder Singh S/O Bhanwar Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This criminal appeal is arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2012 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial

No.388/2011, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 366, 368, 370 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 5-5 years RI and fine of

Rs.3000/-, 1000/- & 1000/- with default stipulation. He has further been convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 10

years RI and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.12.2010, 17 years old son of the prosecutrix lodged complaint at Police Station - Chimanganj Mandi that

his mother is missing from 24.11.2010. The police registered missing person report No.142/2010. During investigation, it was found that she had gone

with the accused for labour work in the evening of 24/11/2010 at the mill of one Shankar Jaiswal and did not return home. The police found her in the

house of the accused Manu Singh. She stated that when she was returning from the mill of Shankar Jaiswal, the accused Lalsingh and Indersingh told

her that boss (Seth) is calling her to pay wages. When she went to Pandyakhedi, they forcibly pushed her into the car and took her away. They

(Indersingh and Lalsingh) raped her in the car at the threat of life. On next day she was kept in a room where the accused Mausingh came in the

evening and told her that he has purchased her for Rs.65,000/- from Indersingh and Lalsingh. Thereafter, he also raped her for about 17-18 days at

the threat of her life. On 14.12.2010 in the evening the police party came there and get her free. The police registered a case and after usual

investigation filed charge-sheet, which was ended in the conviction of the appellant as stated in para-1 above.

The appellant has preferred this appeal on various grounds. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has recorded the

conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution

evidence have been overlooked and so on, but during arguements, he submitted that he does not want to press merits of the appeal and only wants

to submit that the appellant belongs to a poor family and as per PUD letter No. 1126/warrant/2018 dated 26.03.2018 received from office of the Jail

Superintendent, District Jail, Shajapur he is going to be released on 05.07.2018. Therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already

undergone.

Though the prosecution has opposed the prayer of the appellant, but learned Public Prosecutor has not rebutted the facts stated by the learned

counsel for the appellant.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts, background of the appellant, nature, impact, gravity and seriousness of the incident and also the letter of Jail

Superintendent, in my considered opinion the ends of justice would be sub-served if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period

already undergone.

Therefore, this appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 366, 368, 370 & 376(2)(g) of the IPC is

maintained and so far as the period of sentence is concerned, the judgement of the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence

awarded for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone with fine awarded by the learned trial Court.

With the aforesaid modification, the present appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.

The appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Order of the learned trial Court regarding disposal of the property is hereby confirmed.