HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SB : Justice G.S. Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 686/2014
Jeetu alias Jitendra
State of Madhya Pradesh
Shri Rishikesh Bohare, counsel for the appellant.
Shri G.S. Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
(Passed on 13/03/2018)
This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has
been filed against the judgment dated 09.06.2014 passed by
Shri Ajay Shrivastava, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in
Special Trial No. 14/2013, by which the appellant was convicted
for an offence under Section 354(A) of IPC and Section 7 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short
“POCSO Act”) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous
imprisonment of four years and a fine of Rs.500/- with default
(2) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present
appeal, in short, are that on 26.02.2013 the prosecutrix, who is
aged about 9 years, had gone to the school. At about 02:30 PM
after the school was over, the prosecutrix went behind the
school for taking plum (ber), where the appellant called her in a
room and started doing indecent act with her, on her
screaming, mother of the prosecutrix, who used to make the
chapati in the school, reached there and then the prosecutrix
informed that the appellant had kissed on her cheek and
touched her body. Thereafter, mother of the prosecutrix tried to
trace out the appellant in the village but he was not found.
Accordingly, a written complaint was made and on the basis of
which, police registered a FIR for an offence under Section 354
of IPC in Crime No. 36/2013.
(3) During the investigation, prosecutrix was got
medically examined. The appellant was arrested. A spot map
was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and
accordingly a charge-sheet for an offence under Section 354 of
IPC and under Section 7 and 8 of POCSO Act was filed.
(4) The Trial Court by order dated 11.07.2013 framed
the charges under Section 354(A) of IPC and Section 7/8 of
POCSO Act. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not
(5) The prosecution, in order to prove its case,
examined the prosecutrix (PW-1), Ramkali Bai (PW-2), Pooran
Singh Namdev (PW-3), R.V.S. Kushwaha (PW-4), G.S. Solanki
(PW-5) and G.S. Rajput (PW-6). The appellant did not examine
any witness in his defence.
(6) The Trial Court by judgment dated 09.06.2014
convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under
Section 354(A) of IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.
(7) Challenging the conviction and sentence recorded
by the Trial Court, it is submitted by counsel for the appellant
that the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her mother
Ramkali Bai (PW-2) and her father Pooran Singh Namdev (PW-
3) is not reliable.
(8) Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the State
that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant
without reasonable doubt and the Trial Court did not commit
any mistake in convicting the appellant for the above-
(9) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(10) The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that about six
months ago, she was behind her school and it was at about
02:00 PM, the appellant came there and took her in a room,
where he kissed her and touched her entire body including her
private part. The prosecutrix started screaming and after
hearing her shouts, her mother came there and the entire
incident was narrated by the prosecutrix to her mother.
Meanwhile, the appellant had already ran away. Thereafter,
they came back to their house, where the incident was narrated
to her father Pooran Singh Namdev. The prosecutrix and her
father went to the police station and lodged the report. The
police recorded her statements and she had narrated the
incident. Ramkali Bai (PW-2) has supported the prosecution
case. She has stated that at about 02:00-02:30 PM, when she
was making food in the kitchen of the school, she heard the
noise of cries of the prosecutrix. She went towards the room,
which is situated on the back side of the school and found that
her daughter was weeping and the appellant was there in the
room and after noticing him, the appellant ran away. The
prosecutrix informed this witness that the appellant had kissed
her and touched her entire body. They tried to find out the
appellant in the village but was not found and on the next day,
her husband Pooran Singh Namdev (PW-3) along with the
prosecutrix lodged the report. Pooran Singh Namdev (PW-3)
has also supported the prosecution case and has stated that
he was informed by her daughter and inquired about the
incident. They went to the school and tried to find out the
appellant in the village but he was not found and as the
conveyance was not available, therefore, he went to the Police
Station Shamshabad District Vidisha on the next day of the
incident and the written complaint Ex. P-1 was made and the
police on the basis of said complaint lodged the FIR, which is
Ex. P-2 and the police had prepared a spot map, which is Ex.
P-3. These three witnesses were cross-examined in detail,
however, the appellant could not point out anything to indicate
that the false FIR was lodged against him.
(11) As nothing could be elucidated from the cross-
examination of these witnesses, which may make these
witnesses unreliable, therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the
guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the
appellant is held guilty for an offence under Section 354(A) of
IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.
(12) So far as the question of sentence is concerned, as
the appellant did not appear before the office of this Court on
01.11.2017, therefore, the bailable warrant of arrest was issued
and in compliance thereof, the appellant appeared before this
Court on 08.03.2018 and informed the Court that he did not
furnish the bail and has already undergone the entire jail
sentence and has already been released from the jail. Counsel
for the State was directed to verify the above-mentioned
submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and as the
State could not obtain the written instructions in this regard
during the working hours of the Court, therefore, relying on the
submissions made by counsel for the appellant, it was directed
that the appellant be released immediately without obtaining
any bail bond from him as he claims to have undergone the
entire jail sentence.
(13) After the case was reserved for judgment, counsel
for the State has produced the letter No. 451/Warrant/2018
dated 08.03.2018 sent by Superintendent of Central Jail,
Vidisha, in which it was mentioned that the appellant had
already undergone the entire jail sentence and has been
released from jail on 06.03.2017. It was also mentioned that the
appellant has also deposited the fine amount.
(14) As the appellant has already undergone the jail
sentence, therefore, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court
does not require any interference.
(15) Accordingly, the judgment and sentence dated
09.06.2014 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Vidisha in Special Trial No. 14/2013 is hereby affirmed.
(16) Since the appellant did not furnish the bail and has
undergone the entire jail sentence, therefore, it is directed that
now the appellant is not required in the present case.
(17) Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby
Digitally signed by