STATE OF M.P. Vs. HARIVALLABH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the State against the judgment and order dated 12.9.88 passed by Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Neemuch, in Cr. Case No. 60/88 whereby the respondent -accused was acquitted of the charge u/s 509 of the IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, was that on 12.4.85 the respondent, a lecturer, at about 7 p.m. when Sonu (PW 4) aged about 6 years, was playing with the children of the respondent, called her in his room and put off his 'Chaddi' and asked her to told his male organ in her hand and suck it and also inserted his finger in her 'Chaddi'. She ran from there and narrated the incident to her mother, Shiv Kumari (PW 2) and also to neighbours Sunderlal (PW I) and his wife Shantidevi (PW 3). Sunderlal went to P.S. Neemuch and submitted written report Ex. P -1. Crime was registered. After completion of investigation, challen was filed. Respondent pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the respondent of the charge u/s 509 IPC. Hence, this appeal by the State.

(3.) NOW I shall examine the prosecution evidence in the light of the above principle. It has come in the evidence of Sonu (PW 4), aged about 6 years old, that she had gone to the house of the respondent. The respondent took her into his room and opened his 'Chaddi' and asked her to hold his male organ in her hand and suck it. She ran from the room and told the incident to her mother Shiv Kumari Joshi (PW 2), Sunde rial (PW I) and Shantidevi (PW 3). All these witnesses supported her statement. They stated that Sonu told them that the respondent put off his 'Chaddi' and asked her to hold his penis and suck it. He also put his finger in her 'Chaddi'. Shiv Kumari also narrated the incident to Shantidevi (PW 3). The statement of Sunderlal has becn corroborated from the FIR Ex. P -I lodged by him. The learned trial Judge discarded the testimony of Sonu and these witnesses on the basis of some minor contradictions. No doubt, Sonu was a child witness but the learned trial Court before recording her statement examined her and opined that she understood the question and thereafter her statement was recorded. It is true that some minor contradictions have occurred in the evidence of Sunderlal, Shiv Kumari Joshi and Shantidevi.