IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2722 of 2011 CHARLI SEN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

None for the appellant.

Shri A.S. Baghel - Panel Lawyer for the State.

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2478 of 2011 HIRENDRA RAJPUT Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Sandeep Koshta - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri A.S. Baghel - Panel Lawyer for the State.

ORDER As none has appeared on behalf of the appellant-Charli Sen in CRA No.2722/2011, therefore, Shri Sandeep Koshta, Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae on behalf of appellant-Charli Sen.

2. Since these appeals arise out of common judgment, therefore, these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. These appeals have been filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar (M.P.) in Session Trial No.53/2010 whereby the appellant Charli Sen has been convicted under Section 365/34 of the I.P.C and appellant Hirendra Rajput and under Section 365 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each and fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation.

4. In brief case of the prosecution case is that complainant Ku. Neha Bediya, daughter of Radhe Bedia lodged a report on 7.6.2009 against the appellants/accused alleging therein that she used to earn her livelihood by performing dance programme in village. She went to village Laloi and when she was returning and as soon as reached near the village Rajwas, the accused persons met her in jeep, abused her and taken her forcibly with them and the accused Hirendra told her that she will not perform dance programme without his permission and kept her in a lonely place. Then he took her to village Barolia and assaulted her with an iron rod and her father was also beaten and thereafter let them off. The complainant went to police station and lodged an FIR. The police registered the offence under Sections 363, 323, 294 and 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act against the appellants/accused and on investigation filed charge sheet before the Court.

5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the competent court, which, on its turn, committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial.

6. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the charge sheet framed charge against appellants for the offence punishable under Section 365, 365/34 and 294 of the IPC, which they denied and claimed for the trial.

7. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, which are Neha (PW-1), Kamla (PW-2), Radhe (PW-3), A.K. Jharkhadiya (PW-4), Dr. Dharmendra Shrivastava (PW-5), Partu @ Patu (PW-6), Mintu (PW-7), Kuwar Singh (PW-8), Feran (PW-9) and Ramesh Kumar Shakya (PW-10) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/10 the documents on record. In defence, the appellants/accused examined Pannalal (DW-1) and placed Ex. D-1 to D-5 on record.

8. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came to hold that the offences under Section 365 and 365/34 of the IPC are found to be proved against the appellants/accused and eventually convicted them and passed the sentence as mentioned above. In this manner, the present appeals have been filed by the appellants.

9. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offence. As regards sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that appellant-Hirendra Rajput has suffered about 97 days incarceration and the appellant-Charli Sen has suffered 101 days. The incident is of the year 2009. They have been facing agony of trial since 2009. Therefore, it is prayed that sentence of the appellants may be redu