(N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari, JJ.)
State of Madhya Pradesh ____________________________ Applicant;
v.
Harisingh _______________________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 963 of 2012, decided on February 6, 2020
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 04.05.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 1086 of 1994 whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the respondent herein against his conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial court. The trial court had convicted the respondent under Sections 450 and 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for both offences.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court, which, as discussed above, partly allowed the respondent’s appeal by setting aside his conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC and altering the sentence imposed on him under Section 450 IPC into one under Section 457 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him on the ground that the testimony by the prosecutrix suffered inconsistencies.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the records placed before us.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State vehemently contended that the High Court erred in holding that no reliance could be placed on the evidence of the prosecutrix on the question of consent. Therefore, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone was totally unjustified.
5. Though the High Court has confirmed the conviction of the respondent, the judgment in paragraph 5 records several inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution. It also adverts to the evidence of Dr. (Smt.) R. Aman, PW-7, expressing her inability to give any definitive opinion as to the commission of the offence. In the context of the allegations made, these factors, along with the delay in making the report to the police, are the factors taken into consideration by the High Court. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No(s).963/2012
State of Madhya Pradesh _____________________________ Appellant;
v.
Harisingh _________________________________________ Respondent
Date: 06-02-2020 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv.
Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Adv.
Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Adv. Mr. Rahul Khatri, Adv.
Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. M. Sarada, AOR
Mr. Rajeev G., Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
7. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
———
