RITESH SAPLE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed against the judgment conviction and sentence dated 217.9.2021 passed by the learned 1st ASJ, Sendhwa, District Barwani in ST No.132/2019, whereby, appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 452, 354, 354(a)(1)(i), 363/511, 366/511 and 323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo for 2, 1, 1, 3 and 5 years RI with fine of Rs.500.00 for each offences respectively with default stipulations.

(2.) As per the prosecution story, on 8/7/2019, she lodged a report by submitting that prior to 4-5 days of the incident, she went her maternal house alongwith her husband. Her husband went to agriculture field with his brother Rakesh. She alongwith her sister and mother was at home. At about 5:00PM, the applicant alongwith his 3 friends came in front of her house, the applicant entered in her house and two were standing out of the house, the appellant told her that you are my lady and caught hold her hand with wrong intention, her sister and mother tried to intervene, the appellant beat them by kicks and torn her cloths. When they all cried, the neighbors came to the spot and saved them and on being interrogation by the villagers, the appellant and co-accused told their names as Akash, Raidas and Pintiya. When the neighbors dialed 100, they fled away from the spot by threatening that next time they will kill them. Thereafter, the police has lodged the report against the appellant and other coaccused persons under Sec. 452, 354, 354(a)(1)(i), 363/511, 366/511 and 323 of IPC. After following the due process of law, the police has filed the charge-sheet.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of statements of three interested witnesses who are relatives of the prosecutrix namely Jakabai PW-2 and Rahabai PW-3. It is further submitted that in defense, the appellant has also examined DW-1 in his favour but the learned trial Court has discarded the version of DW-1 whereas he was the only eye-witness of the incident and no independent witness has been examined in the present case. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix in para no.14 of his cross-examination admitted that her father has usually used to visit the police station, hence, the police has registered the case under influence of father of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that in the MLC report, no mark of injury is found on the person of the prosecutrix. The FIR was also delayed by one day and no plausible explanation was given for the aforesaid delay. It is further submitted that the appellant has already undergone 3 years and 11 months out of the five years of his jail sentence.