SARWAN DHURVE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused, who is in jail, challenging the judgment dtd. 8/9/2023 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Betul in SC No.02/2020 [State of M.P Vs. Sarwan Dhurve] whereby he has been convicted under Sec. 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 376(2)(j) of IPC and in Sec. 5(l) r/w Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced as below:-

(2.) In short, the prosecution story is that sister of the prosecutrix 'J' (PW.5) lodged a missing report (Ex.P/11) on 2/4/2019 at Police Station, Shahpur, District Betul that daughter of his uncle ('mama') had left the house at 11 am without informing her or family members. She was living with her since childhood. She was searched everywhere but her whereabouts could not be traced. She suspects that her minor sister (prosecutrix) has been enticed by unknown person. On the basis of this information FIR (Ex.P/12) Crime No.170/2019 has been registered under Sec. 363 IPC. After the prosecutrix was recovered her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Investigation was carried out including collection of DNA samples and sending them for FSL examination. FSL report (Ex.P/30) and DNA report (Ex.P/31) were received. During investigation statements of witnesses were recorded, spot map was prepared, accused was arrested and after completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed. The accused denied the charges. The learned trial Court framed charges as mentioned in paragraph 1 above. Accused denied the charges. After recording of prosecution evidence when accused was examined under Sec. 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. he denied the prosecution evidence and submitted that he is innocent but has not given any defence evidence.

(3.) Against judgment of conviction by the trial Court this appeal has been filed on the ground that prosecution has failed to produce any reliable evidence on record. Under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement the prosecutrix (PW.4) has not given any statement against the accused/appellant. There is no medical evidence regarding commission of rape. If the prosecution story is to be believed then while travelling prosecutrix has not raised any hue and cry. Prosecutrix was major at the time of incident, i.e. above 18 years of age. Therefore, prayer has been made for acquitting the appellant.