STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. MAHENDRA ALIAS GOLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "Appellant ") is in appeal against the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench at Jabalpur whereby the respondent 's conviction under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC ") has been set aside and instead he has been held guilty under Section 354 IPC and consequently his sentence has been reduced from 5 years to 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution case is that, about a fortnight prior to 20.12.2005 (date of registration of FIR), the two victim­prosecutrix who are named as 'X ' (PW­1) and 'Y ' (PW­2), aged about 9 years and 8 years respectively, were playing 'gilli­danda ' in the street located near the respondent 's house. The respondent who was known to both the victims by virtue of living in the same locality, called them with the inducement that he will give them money. Lured by the promise of getting money, both victims went along with the respondent to his house which was totally empty at the time of the incident. Taking advantage of this opportune moment, the respondent closed all the doors of the house from inside. He then led the victims to one of the rooms in the house and declared that he would marry them. It is stated that the respondent thereafter undressed PW­1 and made her lie down on the cotton cot which was kept in the room. Meanwhile, he also took off his clothes and started rubbing his genitals against the genitals of PW­1. Further, in the same identical manner, the above­mentioned act was repeated with PW­2.

(3.) Both the minor victims, as an obvious reaction to the respondent 's acts must have felt scared and shocked because of which they allegedly started crying. The respondent apprehending that the neighbours could possibly hear the victims ' voices, told them not to disclose anything about this incident and silenced them by threatening them with physical harm. However, after a few days, both victims revealed the details of the incident to their friend who is named as 'Z ' (PW­8). Fortunately, the incident which could have remained buried forever, surfaced because of the fateful and inadvertent intervention of PW­8. It is stated that on the occasion of a religious gathering at PW­2 's house, PW­8 started teasing PW­2 by calling her as 'respondent 's wife ', which led to PW­6 (PW­2 's mother) inquiring the reasons behind the same. This chance probe spiralled into the victims revealing the incident 's details to their mothers. On the same day of the gathering, PW­2 confided in PW­6 when the latter prodded her to share the details of the incident. Similarly, PW­1 confided in PW­3 (PW1 's mother) on the same day in the evening. The mothers (PW­3 and PW­6) then communicated the same to their respective husbands. After a lapse of 15 days of the incident, the present FIR was thus filed.