Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 628
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajendra Mahajan, J.
Vasudev @ Kalu v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.490 of 2014 (Jabalpur) : against the judgment and order dated 29.1.2014, passed by Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khandwa in Special Case No.62 of 2013; Decided on 7.11.2016.
K.S. Rajput for appellant;
R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.354A -- offence under -- when not made out -- caught hold of hands of victim girl by accused and saying that he loves her and wants to marry her -- act against accused proved only to that extent -- such act of accused does not amount to sexual harassment -- accused cannot be convicted and sentenced for offence under section 354A.
Held : From the perusal of the depositions of Shalini (PW3) and grandmother Sarita (PW5), I find that they have corroborated the statement of the victim girl to the extent that on the date of incident she narrated them that the appellant had seized her by her hands and told her that he loved her and wanted to marry her. Therefore, I conclude that the victim girl’s evidence is reliable only to the extent that on the date of incident the appellant had caught hold of her hands, saying her that he loves and wants to marry her.
Upon the proved act against the appellant vis-a-vis the provisions of the aforesaid section, I am of the confirmed view that the act of the appellant does not amount to sexual harassment to the victim-girl. Thus, the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law convicting the appellant under section 354A IPC.
(2) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -- Ss.7 and 8 -- offence under -- when not made out -- sexual assault -- means of -- mere caught hold of hands of victim girl by accused and saying that he loves her and wants to marry her -- such expressions does not amount to sexual assault -- accused cannot be convicted and sentenced -- trial Judge has committed gross error in law convicting accused under sections 7 and 8 of the Act.
Held : It is already held by me that the statement of the victim-girl is reliable only to the extent that on the date of occurrence the appellant had caught hold of her hands, saying that he loves her and wants to marry her. Upon the reading of provisions of section 7 POCSO Act meticulously and carefully, in my opinion mere taking hold of hands of the victim girl by the appellant with the aforesaid expressions does not amount to sexual assault. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has grossly committed an error in law convicting the appellant under section 7 r/w 8 POCSO Act.
(3) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -- Ss.42, 7 and 8 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S.354A -- offence under and any offence under Act of 2012 -- punishment for -- accused can be punished for greater degree of punishment -- but accused cannot be punished under both sections 354A of IPC and section 7 read with section 8 of Act of 2012.
Held : It is crystal clear that if a Court finds an accused guilty of any offence of the IPC mentioned in the above section and any offence of the POCSO Act, then the Court shall punish the accused for greater degree of punishment. But, the learned trial Judge has punished the appellant under both the sections 354A IPC and 7 r/w 8 POCSO Act overlooking the provisions of aforesaid section. Thus, the learned trial Judge has also committed a legal error in sentencing the appellant in both the sections. [Para 15
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.354 and 354A -- alteration of sentence -- on date of occurrence -- offence against accused -- proved to extent that accused caught hold of hands of victim girl in public place uttering expressions of love and marrying her -- it is case of simple outraging of modesty of victim girl -- such offnece is punishable under section 354 -- conviction and sentence under sections 354A and 7 read with section8 POCSO Act altered to section 354 IPC. [Paras 16 & 17
(5) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 -- S.4 -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.361 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S.354 -- entitlement of benefit under section 4 of Act, 1958 -- on date of incident -- age of illiterate accused was 20 years -- accused previously not convicted in criminal case -- in such circumstances -- it is fit case to grant benefit of probation -- convicting the accused under section 354 of IPC -- accused released on probation of good conduct under section 4 of Act of 1958 -- instead of further sentence -- entering into personal bond sum of Rs.25,000/- directed. 2012(I) MPWN 92 and 1978(I) MPWN 436 relied on. AIR 1965 SC 444 followed. [Para 18
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 354d & mica/k ds v/khu vijk/k & dc ugha curk & vfHk;qDr }kjk ihfM+r yM+dh dk gkFk idM+uk vkSj ;g dguk fd og mlls I;kj djrk gS rFkk mlls fookg djuk pkgrk gS & vfHk;qDr dk d`R; dsoy bl lhek rd lkfcr & vfHk;qDr dk ,slk d`R; ySafxd mRihM+u dh dksfV esa ugha vkrk & vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 354d ds vijk/k ds fy, fl}nks"k vkSj naMkfn"V ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % 'kkfyuh ¼v lk 3½ rFkk firkegh lfjrk ¼v lk 5½ ds dFkuksa ds voyksdu ls eSa ikrk gw¡ fd mUgksaus ihfM+r yM+dh ds dFkuksa dk bl lhek rd leFkZu fd;k gS fd mlus ?kVuk fnukad dks mUgsa crk;k Fkk fd vihykFkhZ }kjk mlds gkFk idM+s j[ks vkSj mldks og I;kj djrk gS ,oa mlls fookg djuk pkgrk gSA blfy,] eSa ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyrk gw¡ fd ihfM+r yM+dh dh lk{; dsoy bl lhek rd fo'oluh; gS fd ?kVuk fnukad dks vihykFkhZ us mlds gkFkksa dks idM+s j[kk Fkk] ;g dgrs gq, fd og mlls I;kj djrk gS vkSj mlls fookg djuk pkgrk gSA
vihykFkhZ ds fo:} lkfcr d`R; dh rqyuk esa mi;qZDr /kkjk ds mica/k] esjh lqfuf'pr jk; gS fd vihykFkhZ dk d`R; ihfM+r yM+dh ds ySafxd mRihM+u dh dksfV esa ugha vkrkA blfy,] fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;k/kh'k us vihykFkhZ dh /kkjk 354d ds v/khu nks"kfl} Bgjkus esa fof/k dh ?kksj :i ls =qfV dh gSA
¼2½ ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 & /kkjk 7 rFkk 8 & mica/kksa ds v/khu vijk/k & dc ugha curk & ySafxd vkdze.k & ls vfHkizsr & vfHk;qDr }kjk ihfM+r yM+dh ds dsoy gkFk idM+s jguk vkSj ;g dguk fd og mlls I;kj djrk gS ,oa mlls fookg djuk pkgrk gS & ,slh vfHkO;fDr;k¡ ySafxd vkdze.k dh dksfV esa ugha vkrh & vfHk;qDr dks nks"kfl} vkSj naMkfn"V ugha fd;k tk ldrk & fopkj.k U;k;k/kh'k us vfHk;qDr dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 rFkk 8 ds v/khu nks"kfl} Bgjkus esa fof/k dh Hkkjh xyrh dh gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % esjs }kjk ;g igys gh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tk pqdk gS fd ihfM+r yM+dh ds dFku dsoy bl lhek rd fo'oluh; gSa fd ?kVuk fnukad dks vihykFkhZ us mlds gkFk idM+ j[ks Fks] ;g dgrs gq, fd og mldks I;kj djrk gS vkSj mlls fookg djuk pkgrk gSA ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 ds mica/k iwjh ckjhdh vkSj lko/kkuh ls i<+us ij] esjh jk; esa mi;qZDr vfHkO;fDr;ksa ds lkFk dsoy ihfM+r yM+dh ds gkFk idM+s jguk ySafxd vkdze.k dh dksfV esa ugha vkrkA blfy,] fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;k/kh'k us vihykFkhZ dks ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 lgifBr /kkjk 8 ds v/khu nks"kfl} Bgjkus esa fof/k dh Hkkjh xyrh dkfjr dh gSA
¼3½ ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 & /kkjk 42] 7 rFkk 8 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 354d & mica/k ds v/khu vijk/k vkSj 2012 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dksbZ vijk/k & ds fy, naM & vfHk;qDr dks vf/kd naM ls nafMr fd;k tk ldrk gS & ysfdu vfHk;qDr dks nksuksa /kkjkvksa esa HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 354d vkSj 2012 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 lgifBr /kkjk 8 ds v/khu nafMr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g lqLi"V gS fd ;fn U;k;ky; vfHk;qDr dks HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr dksbZ /kkjk ds vijk/k ds fy, vkSj ySafxd vijk/kksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e ds dksbZ vijk/k dk nks"kh ikrk gS] rc U;k;ky; vfHk;qDr dks vf/kd naM ls nafMr djsxkA fdarq] fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;k/kh'k us mi;qZDr /kkjk ds mica/kksa dks vuns[kk dj vfHk;qDr dks nksuksa /kkjkvksa HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 354d vkSj ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 lgifBr /kkjk 8 ds v/khu nafMr fd;k gSA bl izdkj] fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;k/kh'k us vihykFkhZ dks nksuksa /kkjkvksa ds v/khu nafMr djus esa Hkh fof/kd =qfV dh gSA
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 354 rFkk 354d & naMkns'k dk ifjorZu & ?kVuk fnukad dks & vfHk;qDr ds fo:} vijk/k & dsoy bl lhek rd lkfcr fd vfHk;qDr lkoZtfud LFkku ij ihfM+r yM+dh ds gkFk idM+s ;g vfHkO;Dr dj jgk Fkk fd og mlls I;kj djrk gS vkSj mlls fookg djuk pkgrk gS & ;g ekeyk ek= ihfM+r yM+dh dh yTtk Hkax djus dk gS & ,slk vijk/k /kkjk 354 ds v/khu naMuh; gS & /kkjk 354d ,oa ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 lgifBr /kkjk 8 ds v/khu fl}nks"k vkSj naMkns'k HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 354 esa ifjofrZr fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 17½
¼5½ vijk/kh ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e] 1958 & /kkjk 4 & naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 361 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 354 & 1958 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds v/khu Qk;ns dh gdnkjh & ?kVuk fnukad dks & fuj{kj vfHk;qDr dh vk;q 20 o"kZ Fkh & vfHk;qDr iwoZ ls nkafMd ekeys esa nks"kfl} ugha & ifjoh{kk dk Qk;nk iznku djus ds fy, ;g mfpr ekeyk gS & vfHk;qDr dks HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 354 ds v/khu fl}nks"k Bgjkrs gq, & vfHk;qDr dks 1958 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds v/khu lnkpj.k dh ifjoh{kk ij NksM+k x;k & vU; naMkns'k ds ctk; :i;s 25]000@& dh jde dk O;fDrxr ca/ki= fufo"V djus ds fy, funsf'krA 2012 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 92 rFkk 1978 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 436 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 444 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 18½
1. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.1.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge Khandwa and Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) in Special Case No.62/2013, convicting the appellant under sections 354A of the IPC and 7 r/w 8 of the POCSO Act and thereby sentencing him to suffer on first count RI for two years with a fine of Rs.500/- and second count RI for three years with a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations and directing that all the punishments of imprisonment shall run concurrently, the appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the CrPC.
2. The prosecution case in nut shell is as under :
(2.1) On 2.10.2013 at about 10:20 a.m. the victim girl (PW2) accompanied with her mother Shalini (PW3) lodged an oral FIR at Police Station Chhaigaon Makhan of Khandwa district stating that she is a student of 10th class and commutes from her native village Chhaigaon Makhan to Khandwa town to attend her regular and computer classes. On the self-same-day at about 7:30 a.m., she was waiting for a public transport at the Bus Stand Chhaigaon Makhan to go to Khandwa. At that time, appellant-accused Vasudev @ Kalu, who is of her caste and who and she reside in the same locality in Chhaigaon Makhan, came close to her and told her that he loved her and made some unpleasant remarks. Thereafter, he caught hold of her hands with sexual intent. She got her hands freed and went running to her house. There, she reported the matter to her mother Shalini and grand-mother Sarita (PW5), neighbour Suresh (not examined) and others (not named in the FIR). She has also stated in the FIR that on earlier occasions the appellant made sexual advances to her and put up her posters.
(2.2) Upon the oral report of the victim-girl, Assistant Sub-Inspector Shriram Patidar (PW6) scribed the FIR Ex.P-4 and registered a criminal case against the appellant at Crime No.232/2013 under sections 354A IPC and 7 r/w 8 POCSO Act. He and Probationer Sub-Inspector Archana Singh Chouhan (PW4) investigated the case. He prepared the spot map Ex.P-5 at the instance of the victim-girl, and recorded case diary statements of the victim-girl, her mother, grand-mother and neighbour Suresh. Archana Singh Chouhan seized the progress card Ex.P-3 of the 8th class of the victim girl from her mother vide seizure memo Ex.P-6 for the purpose of her date of birth and also arrested the appellant vide arrest memo Ex.P-7.
(2.3) Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid in the Court of the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Khandwa under the POCSO Act for the prosecution of the appellant under sections 354A IPC and 7 r/w 8 POCSO Act.
3. The learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge framed the charges against the appellant under sections 354A IPC and 7 r/w 8 POCSO Act. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In the examination under section 313 of the CrPC, the appellant has denied the evidence and circumstances adduced by the prosecution against him. He has taken the defence of false implication. However, he has not adduced any evidence in support of his claim either documentary or oral.
4. Upon a critical appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge for the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment has concluded that at the time of alleged incident the victim-girl was minor and the offences with which the appellant is charged are proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He has, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated in para-1 of this judgment.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the victim girl in the FIR Ex.P-4 and her evidence has stated that the appellant had stuck 4 to 5 posters in his handwriting at the Bus Stand Chhaigaon Makhan in which he has stated that “He loves her very much and wants to marry her”. However, the police had not seized any poster from the sa
