Mukesh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon''ble Shri A.K. Sharma, J.—Appellant has filed this appeal u/s 374 of Cr.P.C. against judgment dt. 8.3.1997 passed in S.T. No. 170/1993 passed by learned XIIIth Additional Sessions Judge Indore, M.P. whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-also has been imposed upon him with default stipulation. The brief facts of the case are that, on 4.2.1992 prosecutrix PW-1 (name of the prosecutrix is not mentioned to hide her identity) aged 8 years told her mother in the night that while mother has gone outside for work, appellant Mukesh Yadav took her to his house for bringing milk. After taking her inside the house, appellant committed sexual intercourse with her. On report of mother of prosecutrix, FIR has been registered by Police and after filing of challan, learned Trial Court tried the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC and convicted him for the same and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that the learned Trial Court is not justified in convicting him on the basis of unreliable evidence.

The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether, learned Trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant by impugned judgment.

Considering the statement of prosecutrix PW-1 and her mother it is clear, that prosecutrix PW-1 narrated to her mother that appellant took the prosecutrix in his house and committed sexual intercourse with her but there are minor discrepancies regarding injury sustained by the prosecutrix. The defence of appellant is that, the prosecutrix sustained injury on her private part from the fencing wire but Doctor Shanta Saraf PW-10 on medical examination of prosecutrix on 5.2.1992 has stated that the prosecutrix did not cooperate for examination of private part, therefore, she has been referred to Gynecologist and Gynecologist Dr. Mrs. Geeta Mishra examined the prosecurix after administering her anesthesia and found abrasion with bleeding from her private part. Dr. Mishra has expired in motor accident, therefore, considering the medical report along with statement of prosecutrix, learned Trial Court is justified in holding appellant guilty for offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC.

So far as the sentence is concerned, appellant has been in custody from 9.2.1992 to 28.2.1992 i.e. for 20 days during trial. Thereafter he has been in custody since passing of impugned judgment on 8.3.1997 till 1.5.1998 i.e. for one year, one month and 23 days. The act of the appellant is compounded by the prosecutrix and her mother. Prosecutrix was minor at the time of incidence. Prosecutrix is major lady now and appellant has been facing this litigation since 1992 i.e. for about 20 years.

Considering the period undergone by the appellant, further considering the long period of litigation and considering the fact that prosecutrix has compounded the offence of the appellant, the appeal is partly allowed maintaining the conviction and fine amount. Sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to already undergone. Bail bonds of appellant shall stand discharged.