Santosh Das vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Conviction,sentenced

U/s. 363 I.P.C.,"R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine R.I. for 02 months.

U/s. 366 I.P.C.,"R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine R.I. for 02 months.

U/s. 376(2)(Jha) I.P.C.,"R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of fine R.I. for 03 months.

U/s. 3(ka)/4 of POCSO Act,"R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine R.I. for 02 months.

U/s. 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act,"R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine R.I. for 02 months.

The prosecutrix has categorically stated that the appellant took her on cycle to the Forest where his agricultural field is situated and there he took,

off her undergarments and committed rape upon her. When she started the weeping and crying the appellant took the prosecutrix back to her home.,

There is sufficient material against the appellant to show that the appellant committed rape upon her. The statement of the prosecutrix is corroborated,

by the medical evidence and F.I.R. The name of the appellant is mentioned in the F.I.R.. This Court after perusal of the evidence finds that the,

learned trial Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence and convicting the appellant on the aforementioned offence.,

Learned counsel appeared for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court passed the severe sentenced against the appellant, it is not called",

for and submit a copy of the order dated 13.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3588/2014, Laxman Baheshvar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh",

passed by this Court. In this case, appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 376 and 506 (II) of I.P.C. and sentencedd",

to undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offence,

punishable under Section 450 of I.P.C., this Court reduced the sentenced from 10 years to 07 years. In this case, prosecutrix was a major, in the",

present case prosecutrix is a child of 09 years old, secondary sexual character of the prosecutrix was not developed and appellant is of the age of 28",

years and took the child with intention for raping her in Forest, secluded place and there forcibly committed rape upon her. The facts of this case and",

the case submitted by the counsel is totally having different facts.,

Appellant does not deserve any leniency in sentenced, therefore, on the basis of the foregoing discussions, this Court affirmed the conviction and",

sentence passed by the trial Court .,

Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.",