Lakhan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

[1] By this appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., appellant has challenged the judgment dated 15/05/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar Mandleshwar, District Khargone in Session Trial No.230/2012 convicting the appellant for offence under Section 450 IPC and sentencing him for 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence of 1 year, offence under Section 506 (2) IPC 2 years of R.I. fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence of 3 months and offence under Section 376 (1) IPC sentence of 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence of 2 years.

[2] The prosecution story is that on 28/09/2012 at 11:00 O'clock the prosecutrix was in her house cleaning utensils and her father Radheshyam (PW/3) and mother Rukmanibai (PW/4) had gone to do the work as labourer at that time, the appellant came to her house and Laxmibai - sister of appellant had closed the door from outside and the appellant had committed rape and had left thereafter by threatening the prosecutrix not to inform anyone. PW/2 - Seema and Reena, the neighbours had seen the incident and when the parents of the prosecutrix came in the evening, the prosecutrix had informed them and the FIR was lodged on the next day. The police after investigation had filed the challan against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 450, 506(2), 376 (2)(g) and alternatively 376(1) of the IPC against the appellant and her sister Laxmibai.

[3] The trial Court after examining the evidence had convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences as mentioned above.

[4] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the prosecutrix (PW/1) has given the details of the commission of offence of rape by the appellant. As per her statement, appellant had entered into her house when she was alone and had committed rape. The statement of prosecutrix is duly supported by the statement of Ku. Seema (PW/2). She is residing near the house of the prosecutrix and had seen the appellant entering the house. PW/3 - father of the prosecutrix has given the details of the incident as informed by the prosecutrix to him and has supported her version. PW/6 - Smt. Amita Pandey, the Medical Specialist had done the medical examination of the prosecutrix. The FSL report (Exhibit P/15) in respect of  vaginal swab and human sperm found on the undergarments, supports the prosecutrix version relating to the commission of rape. The statement of PW/4 - Rukmanibai - mother of the prosecutrix also supports the version that at the time of the incident the prosecutrix was alone at home and the prosecutrix had disclosed the details of the incident to her when she came back.

[5] Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 450, 506(2) and 376(1) of the IPC.

[6] Learned counsel for the appellant has also not advanced the argument assailing the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences, but he has mainly made a prayer for reduction of sentence by submitting that the appellant has already remained in custody for more than 8 years and 4 months including the remission period, therefore, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. He has pointed out that the appellant was a young boy of 20 years of age at the time of the incident, he has no criminal antecedents and this was his first offence and the co-accused has already been acquitted and he has suffered more than the minimum sentence which is prescribed for the aforesaid offences.

[7] The mitigating circumstances pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant are not in dispute. The report of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Khargone dated 08/02/2018 also supports the plea of the appellant in respect of the period for which the appellant had remained in custody.

[8] Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 450, 506(2) and 376(1) of the IPC, but reducing the sentence for offence under Section 376(1) of the IPC for the period already undergone by the appellant. On deposit of the fine amount, the appellant be released if he is not required to be in custody in any other proceeding.

C.c. as per rules.