Vishal alias Raj Semsan vs State of Madhya Pradesh

A.K. Shrivastava, J.—Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.1997 passed by the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 321/1996 convicting the appellant u/s 376/511 of IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer three years RI, the appellant has preferred this appeal u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal as they are elaborately mentioned in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment. Suffice it to say that the prosecutrix who had not seen the fifth spring of her life was tried to be molested by the appellant by inserting his penis in her vagina. On being committing such a vile act, the prosecutrix screamed, as a result of which, her mother who was in another room arrived there and caught the appellant red-handed. FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the mother of prosecutrix namely Sushma George Markam, upon which a case was registered against the appellant under Sections 376, 511, 294, 506 later part of IPC. But, the prosecutrix was not referred to any lady doctor.

After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the committal Court which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the Trial Court for the trial.

The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the material available in the charge sheet, framed the charges punishable u/s 376/511 IPC against the appellant, which he denied and requested for the trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and placed Ex.P/1 to P/4, the documents on record. The defence of the appellant is of maladroit implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In support of his defence, he has examined to examine Meenakshi Semsan as DW1.

The learned Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came to hold that the charge under 376/511 of IPC is proved against the appellant and hence convicted him and passed the sentence, which I have already mentioned hereinabove.

In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

The contention of Shri Ashok Koshta, learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the prosecution.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that cogent reasons have been assigned by the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant and hence this appeal be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

On bare perusal of the testimony of prosecutrix this Court finds that specifically she has stated that appellant used to visit her house frequently and by taking the advantage, he carried the prosecutrix in his lap in another room where after taking off her panty he tried to insert his penis in her vagina. At that juncture, prosecutrix screamed, as a result of which, her mother arrived there and caught the appellant red-handed. The testimony of prosecutrix is corroborated by her mother Sushma George Markam (PW1). Looking to the unimpeachable testimony of these two witnesses, I am of the view that learned Trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant u/s 376/511 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that some leniency may be adopted in passing the sentence. According to me, learned Trial Court has already taken a lenient view and no further leniency is needed in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when the appellant had breached the faith of the prosecutrix''s mother and father and by taking undue advantage of friendship, he committed such a vile act with an innocent girl who did not even see fifth spring of her life. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal stands dismissed. Earlier the appellant was on bail, however, when he did not appear before the Court, he has been arrested and now he is undergoing the sentence. Let the appellant shall remain in jail and serve the entire sentence imposed upon him.