Back
2024 Supreme(MP) 640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J.
NITESH PATIDAR AND OTHERS - Appellants
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 53 of 2022
Decided On : 09-07-2024
For the Appellants :SHRI VIRENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondents:SHRI H.S. RATHORE, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE.
The prosecution must prove the accused's culpable intention beyond reasonable doubt in sexual offence cases, and contradictions in testimony can lead to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354 and 323 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 7 and 8 - Conviction of appellant for sexual offences - The trial court convicted appellant Nitesh for offences under IPC and POCSO Act, but acquitted co-appellants. The prosecution's case was weakened by contradictions in witness statements and lack of independent corroboration. (Paras 1, 3, 12, 15)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must establish the culpable intention of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in sexual offences. The absence of corroborative evidence and contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. (Paras 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of molesting a minor during a tuition session. The incident led to a physical altercation involving the prosecutrix's family. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the prosecutrix's testimony, which was later challenged.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not prove the essential elements of the charges against the appellant, particularly the intention to outrage modesty.
Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution established the appellant's culpable intention and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence and the contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony undermined the conviction, emphasizing the necessity of proving intention in sexual offence cases.
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.
Key Points: - The prosecution must prove the accused's culpable intention beyond reasonable doubt in sexual offences. (!) - Major contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony and lack of independent corroboration undermined the conviction. (!) (!) - The proof of intention to outrage modesty is crucial for Section 354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO; absence leads to acquittal. (!) (!) - The appellate court allowed the appeal and acquitted Nitesh of offences under 354 IPC and 7/8 POCSO, and discharged bail and returned fines. (!)
What is the standard of proof required to establish culpable intention in sexual offences under IPC and POCSO?
What are the implications of contradictions in prosecutrix's testimony for conviction under Sections 354 IPC and 7/8 POCSO?
What are the grounds on which the appellate court acquitted the appellant and set aside the trial court’s conviction?
JUDGMENT :
(Prem Narayan Singh, J.)
This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the appellants being crestfallen by the judgment dated 27.12.2021, passed by Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012)/XIth, Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in Sessions Trial No.207/2018, whereby appellant Nitesh has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 323 read with Section 34 (two counts) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'I.P.C.') & Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO') and sentenced to undergo 01 year R.I., 06 months R.I. (two counts) & 03 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, Rs.500/- (two counts) and Rs.500/- respectively and default stipulations and appellants Laxman and Gajendra have been convicted under Section 323 of I.P.C. (two counts) and sentenced to undergo for 06 months R.I. (two counts) with fine of Rs.500/- and default stipulation.
2. Before dwelling upon the points in this appeal, it is worth mentioning that appellants Nitesh, Laxman and Gajendra have already been acquitted from the charges of the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC (two counts), on the basis of the compromise petition filed by the injured persons/ complainants Vijay Gaud, Ankit and Himanshi Gaud. Since the offence under Section 354 of IPC is not compoundable, the compromise petition with regard to the charges framed against appellant Nitesh Patidar under Section 354 of IPC and under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act could not be allowed. Thus, this appeal is being decided with regard to the aforesaid offences against appellant No. 1.
3. As per the case of prosecution, on 07.02.2018 at about 04:00 pm, the prosecutrix went to take tuition from her tuition teacher's house where one Nitesh Patidar was also used to come for tuition. After tuition at about 5:30 pm, when the prosecutrix was going to her home, Nitesh Patidar gave her a mobile phone and caught her hand with bad intention and asked her to talk to him. Further, the prosecutrix went to her home and told about the incident to her parents. Thereafter, her father, her brother alongwith tuition teacher went to the house of Amarsingh Gehlot where Nitesh Patidar was residing. On reaching thereon, the tuition teacher called Nitesh Patidar. However, Gajendra Singh Gehlot and his son Laxman Gehlot came there and informed them that, Nitesh was not in the house and asked them as to why they came to his brother's house. Meanwhile, Nitesh Patidar also came on the spot and thereafter, Nitesh alongwith Gajendra and Laxman started beating the father of the prosecutrix and her brother with fists and slapping. They also abused them. During the altercation, Saurabh Bhati, tuition teacher intervened to rescue them. In the course of incident, father of prosecutrix received injuries on chicks, head and stomach. On the same day, the complainant went to police station and lodged a complaint, thereafter, offence was registered against the appellants.
4. In course of investigation, injured persons prosecutrix's father and brother Ankit were sent for medical examination, spot map was prepared, seizure memos were prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter made over to the Court Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain.
5. The prosecution has examined total 07 witnesses namely Prosecutrix (PW-1), S. Rubisas, Principal of School (PW-2), Prosecutrix's father (PW-3), Dr. S.S. Daboriya, Medical Officer (PW-4), cousin of prosecutrix (PW-5), Saurabh Bhati (PW-6) and Laxman Ukey, Sub-Inspector (PW-7). No witness has been examined in support of the defence. The appellants abjured their guilt and they took a plea that they are innocent.
6. After analyzing the prosecution evidence and considering the rival submissions, the learned trial Court has acquitted the appella
