Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devkaran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2019
Cr.A. No.826/2015 1
Devkaran S/o Dariyav Bhil and another vs. State of M.P.
Cr.A. No.1459/2015
Sardar S/o Juwansingh Bhil and another vs. State of M.P.
Cr.A. No.6617/2018
Gujra S/o Mishrilal Bhil and others vs. State of M.P.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
S. B.: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Vandana Kasrekar
Cr.A. No.826/2015
Devkaran S/o Dariyav Bhil and another
vs.
State of M.P.
********************************************************
Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the appellant No.1.
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant No.2.
Shri Nilesh Jagtap, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cr.A. No.1459/2015
Sardar S/o Juwansingh Bhil and another
vs.
State of M.P.
********************************************************
Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Nilesh Jagtap, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cr.A. No.6617/2018
Gujra S/o Mishrilal Bhil and others
vs.
State of M.P.
Cr.A. No.826/2015 2
Devkaran S/o Dariyav Bhil and another vs. State of M.P.
Cr.A. No.1459/2015
Sardar S/o Juwansingh Bhil and another vs. State of M.P.
Cr.A. No.6617/2018
Gujra S/o Mishrilal Bhil and others vs. State of M.P.
********************************************************
Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Nilesh Jagtap, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 04th day of July, 2019) The appellants (Devkaran and Radheshyam) in Cr.A. No.826/2015, appellants (Sardar and Juwansingh) in Cr.A. No.1459/2015 and appellants (Gujra, Meerabai and Ghanshyam) in Cr.A. No.6617/2018 have filed this present appeals challenging the judgment dated 05/06/2015 delivered by II ASJ, Khargone - West Nimar in S.T. No.196/2014 whereby convicted the appellants (Devkaran and Radheshyam) in Cr.A. No.826/2015 under Section 372 readwith Section 120-B of IPC sentencing them to undergo 10-10 years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation, appellants (Sardar and Juwansingh) in Cr.A. No.1459/2015 under Section 373 readwith Section 120-B, 368, 344, 376(2)(N) of IPC and sentencing him to undergo 10, 5, 1, 10 years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.10,000/- and under Section 373 readwith Section 120-B, 368, 344 of IPC sentencing him to undergo 10, 5, 1 years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/- with default stipulation and appellants (Gujra, Meerabai and Ghanshyam) in Cr.A. No.6617/2018 under Section 368 of IPC sentencing him to undergo 5 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 344 of IPC sentencing her to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs.500/- and under Cr.A. No.826/2015 3 Devkaran S/o Dariyav Bhil and another vs. State of M.P. Cr.A. No.1459/2015 Sardar S/o Juwansingh Bhil and another vs. State of M.P. Cr.A. No.6617/2018 Gujra S/o Mishrilal Bhil and others vs. State of M.P. Section 363, 366(A), 344, 376(2)(N), 372 readwith Section 120-B of IPC sentencing him to undergo 3, 5, 1, 10, 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- respectively, the appellants have preferred the present appeals.
2. Facts in brief are that on 06/02/2013, complainant - Shriram Chakre lodged a missing person report of his daughter to the effect that on 05/02/2013 his daughter left the house without saying anything to anyone and could not be traced out despite search. Thereafter on 30/03/2014, the prosecutrix was found and she disclosed that she had love affair with the appellant/Ghanshyam in Cr.A. No.6617/2018 and her parents were against such relationship and used to beat her on such issue. Annoyed by such act, the prosecutrix left the house and went to meet his lover to Mhow, from where they went to Harsola and resided there for four months, as husband and wife. Thereafter, it was alleged that Ghanshyam asked the prosecutrix to go at her maternal grand mother's house alongwith his Uncle. It is alleged that when the prosecutrix reached there, she came to know that she was sold to sister of Ghanshyam for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- for marrying appellant/Sardar in Cr.A. No.1459/2015, who is son of sister of Ghanshyam. It is furtehr alleged that prosecutrix resided with Sardar for 9 months and when she managed to get mobile phone, she narrated the incident to Police and Police rescued the prosecutrix. On the basis of such incident, FIR was registered at Police Station-Mengaon and the police registered the case under the Sections as mentioned in para 1 above. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court.
Cr.A. No.826/2015 4Devkaran S/o Dariyav Bhil and another vs. State of M.P. Cr.A. No.1459/2015 Sardar S/o Juwansingh Bhil and another vs. State of M.P. Cr.A. No.6617/2018 Gujra S/o Mishrilal Bhil and others vs. State of M.P. Prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and the appellants were charged, tried and convicted as stated in para 1 above.
3. The appellants have preferred these appeals on several grounds but during course of arguments, learned counsels for the appellants submitted that they does not want to press the appeal on merits. Their only contention is that the sentence of the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone. It is submitted that appellants are first offender and have no criminal antecedents. Neither prior to the alleged incident nor thereafter any criminal case is ever registered against them. Appellant-Devkaran was in custody for a period of 1 year, 3 months, 22 days, appellant-Radheshyam was in custody for a period of 5 years approximately, (in Cr.A. No.826/2015), appellant-Sardar was in custody for a period of 5 years, 3 months and 5 days, appellant-Juwansingh was in custody for a period of 2 years and 11 months (in Cr.A. No.1459/2015) and Ghanshyam was in custody for a period of 5 years, 3 months and 1 day, appellants-Gujra and Meerabai were in custody for a period of 3 years and 9 months (in Cr.A. No.6617/2018) of jail sentence, out of the sentence awarded to them, therefore, keeping in view the long pendency of the appeal, their jail term be reduced to the period already undergone.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that after due appreciation of the evidence on record, learned Court below has found the appellants guilty for the offence and no illegality has shown against the appellants. In such circumstances, he prayed for dismissal Cr.A. No.826/2015 5 Devkaran S/o Dariyav Bhil and another vs. State of M.P. Cr.A. No.1459/2015 Sardar S/o Juwansingh Bhil and another vs. State of M.P. Cr.A. No.6617/2018 Gujra S/o Mishrilal Bhil and others vs. State of M.P. of the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record and also the statements of witnesses recorded by the trial Court during trial.
6. For the sake of convenience and to clear the each and every aspect of the case, a separate case shall be dealt with on its own merit to answer/appreciate the evidence led by the trial Court, which as follows :-
(i) There is material contradictions in the statements of mother and father regarding age of the prosecutrix but on the basis of High School Certificate issued by Board of Secondary Education, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of incident i.e. on 05/02/2013 is near 17 years and 8 months, thus, on the basis of which, the trial Court has held that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident.
Cr.A. No.826/2015 (Devkaran and Radheshyam)
(ii) Now keeping in view the role of Devkaran and Radheshyam, from perusal of the entire record, it is crystal clear that they have only handed over the prosecutrix to Sardar for doing labour work.
Cr.A. No.1459/2015 (Sardar and Juwansingh)
(iii) So far as appellant - Sardar is concerned, the prosecutrix has examined and in her statement she has specifically disposed that on her own will, she went and Cr.A. No.826/2015 6 Devkaran S/o Dariyav Bhil and another vs. State of M.P. Cr.A. No.1459/2015 Sardar S/o Juwansingh Bhil and another vs. State of M.P. Cr.A. No.6617/2018 Gujra S/o Mishrilal Bhil and others vs. State of M.P. lived with Sardar and after 4-6 months of the incident, by that time she attained majority. In her statement she further stated that no offence or fraud has been committed by Sardar.
(iv) So far as appellant - Juwansingh is concerned, in the cross examination of the prosecutrix no specific allegation has been made by her against Juwansingh.
Cr.A. No.617/2018 (Gujra, Meerabai and Ghanshyam)
(v) The role of Gujra and Meerabai is only to keep the prosecutrix in their house and the prosecutrix in her statement has not made any categorical allegation against them.
(vi) As far as appellant - Ghanshyam is concerned, here also no specific allegation has been made by the prosecutrix against him in her cross-examination. The only allegation against him that he sold the prosecutrix to Sardar @ Rs.50,000/- but in para 21 of her cross- examination, the prosecutrix has not made any allegation in this regard that in front of her the payment/transaction has been made for selling her.
7. However, considering the fact that the appellants have undergone the jail sentence as discussed above and under the circumstance and considering the nature of the incident and other facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the sentences of the Cr.A. No.826/2015 7 Devkaran S/o Dariyav Bhil and another vs. State of M.P. Cr.A. No.1459/2015 Sardar S/o Juwansingh Bhil and another vs. State of M.P. Cr.A. No.6617/2018 Gujra S/o Mishrilal Bhil and others vs. State of M.P. appellants are reduced to the period already undergone. Therefore, I partly allow the appeals by modifying the sentences, I impose sentences of the period which has already been suffered by the appellants, as mentioned in para 3 of the judgment above.
8. The order of the learned trial Court regarding disposal of the case property is hereby confirmed.
9. With the aforesaid modifications, the appeals are partly allowed and disposed off accordingly.
10. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned lower Court alongwith the record for its information and compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) Judge Aiyer* Digitally signed by Jagdishan Aiyer Date: 2019.07.10 17:43:53 +05'30'