SURENDRA UIKEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is filed under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved of the judgment dtd. 14/07/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) Balaghat in S.C. No. 31/2019 convicting appellant Surendra Uikey under Sec. 363 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000.00 with default stipulation of six months R.I., Sec. 366 (ka) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000.00 with default stipulation of six months R.I., Sec. 376 (2) (n) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.10,000.00 with default stipulation of six months R.I. and Sec. 5L/6 of POCSO Act is in regard to for offence under Sec. 376(2)(n) of I.P.C.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent. It is submitted that as per the prosecution story on 5/01/2019 at about 9:30 A.M., the prosecutrix left her home to attend her school but when she did not return back till evening, then she was searched in the places of relatives but when she could not be traced, then Crime No.1/2019 was registered at Police Station Changotola against unknown persons under Sec. 363 of I.P.C and investigation was started. On 27/01/2019, the prosecutrix returned back and on interrogation, she stated that the appellant had taken her under the cause of performing marriage and she was taken to Kavardha (C.G.). At Kavardha, they hired the room. There, the appellant continuously violated her privacy. Thereafter, the appellant had gone to work at the hotel. Then the prosecutrix ran away and came to her house on 27/01/2019 and narrated her woes to her father. Thereafter, she was medically examined and the appellant was arrested. The investigation was completed. The chargesheet was filed. The charges were levied and the appellant abjured his guilt. The trial was conducted and the appellant has been punished as mentioned above.

(3.) It is submitted that date of birth of the prosecutrix is wrongly mentioned. She was major at the time of the incident. It is a case of consent.