DEEPAK Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal during motion hearing.

(2.) This criminal appeal under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the convicted appellant - Deepak @ Laxmi being aggrieved of the judgment dtd. 31/8/2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Baihar, District Balaghat (M.P.) in Special case No.SC/32/2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak @ Laxmi), whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Ss. 363, 366, 376(2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years (Fine of Rs.500.00), R.I. for 10 years (Fine of Rs.500.00), life imprisonment (Fine of Rs.1,000.00) and R.I. for 12 years (Fine of Rs.1,000.00) with default stipulation of R.I. for 1 year and 6 months, R.I. for 2 years and 6 months, R.I. for 5 years and R.I. for 3 years, respectively.

(3.) Shri Navneet Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent. A consensual relationship has been converted into that of violation of privacy. It is submitted that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was major. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph 10 of the evidence of father of the prosecutrix (PW-1), wherein he has stated that his marriage was performed at the age of 22 years. When he was 23 years of age, at that time the prosecutrix was born. He further stated that on the date of deposition, the prosecutrix is major and on the date when she had absconded, she was major. This fact is also corroborated from the age mentioned in the deposition sheet for PW-1 as 45 years. PW-1 has also admitted in paragraph 7 of his cross-examination that he knew that his daughter had gone to a particular village. He had gone and met the Sarpanch and Mukadam of the said village and had requested them to contact the appellant. They had contacted the appellant and on his insistence, the appellant had brought the prosecutrix back to home. In paragraph 11 of his cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that there was a love affair between the prosecutrix and the appellant. On account of the love affair, she had gone with the appellant.