LAWS(MPH)-2024-5-272

SONU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On May 09, 2024
SONU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sec. 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 14/1/2023 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, District Narmadapuram, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 9(m)/10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs.2000.00, with default stipulations.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the present case the trial Court without even appreciating the scope and ambit of statutory provisions has convicted the appellant. It is contended by the counsel that as per prosecution, when the prosecutrix was there at the place of incident the present appellant came in the state of insobriety and caught hold of hand of the prosecutrix and the said incident was witnessed by one vegetable vendor (PW- 05) and accordingly, the machinery of law was set in motion.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-02) as well as the vegetable vendor (PW-05) have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution story. It is further contended by the counsel that the trial Court prima facie while proceeding on assumption that the present appellant made an attempt to pull the prosecutrix towards himself concluded that it was a physical touch and advance involving explicit sexual overture. It is contended by the counsel that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sec. 164 of CrPC as well as the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the trial Court under Sec. 164 of the CrPC as well would reveal that the prosecutrix has nowhere stated that the present appellant had pulled the prosecutrix towards himself, on the contrary, in the statement recorded under Sec. 164 of CrPC, the prosecutrix said that the present appellant had pulled her hand, tried to drag her and in her statement recorded before the Court it has been stated in para 1, that the present appellant held hand of the prosecutrix and attempted to take her along with him but did not say anything.