Ranjeet vs State of Madhya Pradesh

This appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C has been filed to assail the judgment and conviction dated 18.4.2017 passed by Special Judge

[under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 for brevity Act, 1989] Khandwa in Special Case

No.82/2014, wherein the appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 342, 323 & 354 of IPC and sentenced to only fine of Rs.600/-,

rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1500/- with stipulated default. Apart from this, the appellant has also been convicted for

offence under Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with fine

of Rs.1500/- and for offences under Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Act, 1989 and sentenced to one year rigorous

imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with stipulated default.

The prosecution story in brief, is that the minor prosecutrix was sent by her mother to the house of the accused for obtaining ghee at about 9 pm

on 20.2.2014. When the prosecutrix came to the house of the accused and asked whether his mother is present, the accused falsely stated that his

mother is inside the house. After the prosecutrix entered into the house calling his mother, she found that his mother is not inside the house. The

accused pushed her inside the house and shut the door from inside and threatening her tried to molest. However, the prosecutrix somehow

managed to scuffle and came out by opening the door came out. The appellant followed her and caught her hair and threatened her again. Hearing

the shouts, Uday Singh and Kalpana Bai and other persons came to the scene of crime.

Prosecutrix informed the incident to her mother Sajan Bai. The accused was well aware that the prosecutrix is a member of Korku Tribe. After

the father of prosecutrix, who had gone out, returned to the house, prosecutrix lodged the report at Police Station- New Harsood. The offence at

Crime No.11/2014 vide Exhibit-P/1 was lodged. On the basis of this, Crime No.62/2014 Exhibit-P/8 for offence under Section 354, 342, 323,

506 read with Section 3(1)(11) of the Act, 1989 and the Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been

lodged. After the same was transferred to Police Station AJAK Khandwa vide Exhibit-P/9 requisition was sent for examination of the prosecutrix.

Spot map (Exhibit-P/2) was prepared. The certificate of Caste (Exhibit-P/3) was obtained. Seizure memo (Exhibit-P/12) was prepared. After due

investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

After committal of the case to the Special Court, charges have been framed under Section 342, 354, 323 & 506 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(1)(11) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. The appellant abjured his guilt.

Learned trial Court has, after recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant and sentenced as mentioned

above.

On behalf of the appellant, the judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that the appellant is innocent. The

prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. The testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses are not reliable in the

absence of any support from the other prosecution witnesses, the petitioner has been convicted on the basis of the solitary evidence of the

prosecutrix. This is not proper. The judgment and finding impugned are, therefore, liable to be set-aside. The contradictions, omissions and

exaggerations made by the prosecution witnesses show that their evidence are not trustworthy, therefore, the judgment impugned is not sustainable

and the appellant be acquitted.

On behalf of the respondent/State, contentions are vehemently opposed and it is contended that the learned trial Court has considered all the

evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the accused. The judgment impugned, therefore, does not call for any interference.

Perused the record. The prosecutrix is a member of Korku Tribe, which comes under the Schedule Tribe. The certificate (Exhibit- P/3) has

been issued by SDM Khandwa. It has not been challenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The prosecutrix studied upto Class-5th.

The mark-sheet of Class-5th of the year 2009, has been filed. Exhibit-P/4 is the copy of Scholar register. Exhibit-P/4 has been proved by

Nirbhaysingh Raghuwanshi, the Assistant Teacher, Primary School Rai Khutwal Khandwa. He has stated that the entry of the date of birth of the

prosecutrix has been made in class-1st on 1.7.2003. According to this entry, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 5.4.1996. There is no reason to

disbelieve this entry.

Rule-12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Rules 2007, the entry of primary school register may be taken into account for ascertaining

the date of birth. Hence, the date of birth of the minor prosecutrix would be taken as 5.4.1996. The date of incident is 20.2.2014. Therefore, on

the date of incident, she was 17 years, 10 months & 15 days old i.e. the prosecutrix was less than 18 years at the time of incident. Therefore, it

can also be held that the prosecutrix was minor at the relevant time. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, it has been clearly

established that after the incident, the prosecutrix informed the incident to her mother Sajan Bai (PW/2). Subsequent to arrival of her father, the

prosecutrix lodged the report at Police Chowki New Harsood and the same was transferred to Police Station AJAK. The mother of the

prosecutrix Sajan Bai has also narrated that they have lodged the report after the arrival of her husband Sohan Lal. Though Kalpana Bai (PW/5),

Uday Singh (PW/6) have not supported the prosecution story but the evidence of prosecutrix (PW/1) supported by Sajan Bai (PW/2) lodging the

report (Exhibit-P/1) and subsequent medical examination report Exhibit-P/9 corroborate the prosecution story. Dr. Ashish Raj Mishra (PW/9) has

described the injuries received by the prosecutrix. There was an abrasion below the right eye, 2 1/2 c.m. and another abrasion in the right side of

the neck was present. These injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object.

So far as the solitary evidence of prosecutrix is concerned, it would be appropriate to note that conviction can be found on her testimony

alone, unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration, the Court may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial

conscience. Her evidence is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The Hon''ble Apex Court held so in the case of State of Punjab Vs.

Gurmit Singh & Ors. 1996 (2) SCC 384.

In this regard, it would be appropriate to hold that the evidence available on record are reliable and in the absence of any enmity of the

prosecutrix with the appellant or his family, there is no reason to doubt on the same.

Heard on the question of sentence. The appellant has been imposed fine for offences under section 342 & 323 of IPC, whereas for offences

354 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1500/-. The same is reduced to two years

rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1500/- and in lieu of fine, the appellant has to undergo additional sentence of six months as has been

awarded by the learned trial Court. As regarding offence under Sections 7 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the

minimum sentence prescribed is three years, therefore, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be excessive. For offence

under Section 3(1)(11) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant has been sentenced for one

year Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, which is not excessive. Therefore, the sentence so far as offence under Section 354 of IPC is

concerned is modified to two years in place of three years.

With this modification, this appeal is dismissed.