Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Convicted          under Sentence
Section
5(m)/6 of POCSO Act       10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.2000/- in
                          default 2 months R.I.
342 of I.P.C.             6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- in
                          default 15 days R.I.

2. The prosecution story in short is that on 24-11-2016, the Pappu Singh Parihar Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 2120 of 2019) complainant lodged a F.I.R. that at 8:30 A.M., he had left for the factory. When he came back, then he was informed by his mother that the appellant after detaining the victim, who is aged about 4 years, had suck the penis of the victim and had also tried to insert his penis in the anus of the victim. The information of detaining the victim was given to the mother of the complainant by Vasu and Manisha. It was further alleged that after great efforts, the appellant had opened the doors. The incident took place on 23-11-2016.

Pappu Singh Parihar Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 2120 of 2019) Except by making bald statements, the Counsel for the appellant did not try to substantiate his arguments. Be that as it may.

13. Gangaram (P.W. 1), Rajesh Parihar (P.W.2), Ku. Vasu (P.W.6) have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution story.

14. Victim "A" who is aged about 4 years (P.W.3) has stated that the appellant is known to him. He was playing in his old house. At that time, the appellant asked him to come to his house and he would give money to the victim. Thereafter, the appellant took the victim to his house and locked inside a room. Thereafter, the appellant suck the penis of the victim and also tried to insert his penis in the anus of the victim. At that time, his grandmother came there and started shouting from outside the room. The appellant did not open the door. Thereafter, the appellant went outside after opening the door. The grandmother of the victim was standing outside the room. He has further stated that he was detained in the room for near about 30 minutes.

15. This witness was cross examined. In cross examination, this witness has stated that his grand mother is a housewife. The house of one Lala is situated in between the old house of the victim and the house of the appellant. He further admitted that he was playing with one boy Krishna. The appellant is an unemployed person. He denied that he had demanded a toffy from the appellant. He denied that the appellant had not suck his penis or had not tried to insert his penis in his anus.

18. Father of the Victim "C" (P.W. 5) has stated that on 23-11-2016 at about 8:30A.M., he had left his house and came back in the night. He was informed by his mother, that the appellant had suck the penis of the Victim and had also tried to insert his penis in the anus of the Victim. He was also informed that the appellant had locked the house from inside and after great difficulties, the door was opened. Accordingly, he made a complaint, Ex. P.3 and F.I.R., Ex. P.4 was lodged. Thereafter, the police had prepared the spot map, Ex. P.5. The age of the victim is around 6-7 years and is a student of class Nursery in Pari Memorial Public School, Kulaith.