NITIN @ AMIT PATHAK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment of conviction and sentence dtd. 9/5/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012)/ Second Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in SC No. 62/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 342 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months, Sec. 506-II of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500.00 and also under Sec. 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.5,000.00 along with default stipulations.

(2.) In short, the prosecution case is that prosecutrix P.W.1 lodged FIR Ex. P/1 on 14/7/2020 at Police Station, Pathariya to the effect that about 3 months ago at about 9 P.M., in the month of April, she went to the house of the accused who was living in front of her house to get some buttermilk (matha) and when she went into the house and asked for buttermilk, the accused caught hold of her and took her to the Atari and committed rape on her and also threatened her that if she told the incident to anyone then he would kill her. Thereafter she went back to her house and out of fear did not tell anybody about the incident and went to sleep. After about three months when she did not have her periods then her mother asked about the cause and she told her mother about the entire incident therefore FIR Ex. P/1 at crime number 580/2020 was registered at the police station under Sec. 342, 376, 376(3), 506 of I.P.C. and also under Sec. 3 / 4 of the POCSO Act. Medical examination was done. Prosecutrix was found pregnant. DNA sample was taken and sent for report. Accused was also arrested and after investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed.

(3.) When the trial court charged the accused under Sec. 342, 376(3), 506 Part II of IPC and Sec. 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act, he pleaded innocence and sought trial but has not given any defense evidence.