Mukesh Kumar Manikpuri @ Pintu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:1715

¶3

Digitally signed by SAIFAN SAIFAN KHAN KHAN Date:2025.01.15 12:42:00 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 1772 of 2019

¶7

(Arising out of judgment dated 06.09.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 39/2016 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) and Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surajpur)

¶8

Kuldeep Kumar S/o Nandlal Aged About 21 Years Caste - Panika , R/o Juna Dhatipara, Chowki - Karanji, P.S. Vishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh....( In Jail ).

¶9

--- Appellant

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Vishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.,

¶12

--- Respondent

¶13

CRA No. 1498 of 2017

¶14

Mukesh Kumar Manikpuri @ Pintu S/o Late Teeju Ram Aged About 19 Years Caste Panika R/o Juna Dhartipara , Chowki Karanji Police Station Vishrampur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

--- Appellant

¶16

versus

¶17

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Vishrampur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent

¶18

For Appellants :- Mr. D. Kushwaha, Advocate

¶19

2

¶20

in CRA No. 1498 of 2017.

¶21

Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed by Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee in CRA No. 1772/2019. For State :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer.

¶22

DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶24

Judgment on Board

¶25

(10.01.2025)

¶26

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶27

Since these two criminal appeals have arisen out of the common impugned judgment dated 06.09.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (under POCSO Act) and Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Surajpur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 39/2016, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

¶28

The sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1772/2019 namely Kuldeep Kumar (A-1) and the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1498/2017 namely Mukesh Kumar Manikpuri @ Pintu (A-2); have preferred these two appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, calling in question the validity, legality and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2017, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶29

3

¶30

Appellants Name	Convic	tion	Sentence
Kuldeep Kumar	Under	Section	Rigorous imprisonm	ent
(A-1)	363 of the	IPC	for 3 years and to	pay
			fine of Rs. 5000/-	; in
			default of payment fine, additional rigor	of ous
			imprisonment for months;	6
	Under	Section	Rigorous imprisonm	ent
	366 of the	IPC	for 3 years and to	pay
			fine amount of	Rs.
			5000/-; in default	of
			payment of f	ine,
			additional rigor	ous
			imprisonment for months;	6
	Under	Section	Rigorous imprisonm	ent
	376 (2)(I)	of the	for 10 years and to	pay
	IPC		fine amount of	Rs.
			5000/-; in default	of
			payment of f	ine,
			additional rigor	ous
			imprisonment for months;	6
Mukesh Kumar	Under	Section	Rigorous imprisonm	ent
Manikpuri @	363 of the	IPC	for 3 years and to	pay
Pintu (A-2)			fine amount of	Rs.
			5000/-; in default	of
			payment of f	ine,
			additional rigor	ous
			imprisonment for months;	6

¶31

4

¶32

Under Section	Rigorous im	prisonm	ent
366(A) of the IPC	for 3 years	and to	pay
	fine amou	nt of	Rs.
	5000/-; in	default	of
	payment	of	fine,
	additional	rigo	rous
	imprisonme	nt for	6
	months;

¶33

The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on the date of offence i.e. 05.02.2016 at about 1:00 pm, when the prosecutrix was about to return her home from the school, at that time, appellant Mukesh Kumar Maniikpuri @ Pintu (A-2) induced the minor victim and took her some distance away on his bike where appellant Kuldeep Kumar (A-1) was standing on the way who also sat on the bike. Then the minor prosecutrix tried to descend from the bike but Kuldeep (A-1) sat on the bike using filthy language and the prosecutrix started crying and shouting, then, he covered the mouth of the prosecutrix with his hand. With the help of appellant Mukesh (A-2), accused Kuldeep (A-1) took the prosecutrix near Batra Dam and committed sexual intercourse with minor victim aged below 16 years. At the same time, when a cowman saw them and shouted, then Kuldeep (A-1) left the prosecutrix and called appellant Mukesh (A-2) who dropped the prosecutrix near the school. After reaching home, the prosecutrix narrated the whole

¶34

5

¶35

incident to her mother Janki (PW-2) who lodged a written complaint vide Ex.P-4. FIR was lodged on 07.02.2016 vide Exs.P-5 & P5A. Dakhil-Kharij register (Ex.P-11C) of the victim was seized. As per Dakhil Khariz Register (Ex.P11C), the date of birth of the minor victim is 28.08.2003. MLC of the victim was conducted by Dr. Rajani Kishore Ekka (PW-8) who gave her medical report vide Ex.P-10. In the medical report (Ex.P-10) of the victim no sign of sexual intercourse was found. Underwear of the victim and accused and other articles were seized vide Exs. 7, 8 and 21 and sent for chemical examination to FSL. In the FSL report (Ex.P-23) semen stains and human sperm were found on Articles A, B1 and B2 i.e. underwear of the victim and vaginal slides of the victim.

¶36

After due investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants/accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence.

¶37

In order to bring home the offences the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents and the defence in support of its case has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

¶38

6

¶39

The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellants/accused persons herein for the offences as mentioned in paragraph-2 of the judgment, against which these appeals have been preferred by the appellants herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶40

Mr. Pushkar Singh, learned counsel for appellant Kuldeep Kumar (A-1) submitted that the trial Court was absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. Otherwise, appellant Kuldeep Kumar (A-1) has already completed all the sentences and has been released from jail, as such, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶41

Mr. D. Kushwaha, learned counsel for appellant Mukesh Kumar Manikpuri (A-2) submitted that no case is made out against the appellant as the necessary ingredients for the offences punishable under Section 366(A) and 363 of IPC is not proved against the appellant. He further submits that the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him as the appellant has already remained in jail for about 3 months.

¶42

On the other hand learned State counsel, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has

¶43

7

¶44

been able to bring home the offences beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the conviction recorded by the trial Court is well merited and, therefore, the instant appeals deserve to be dismissed.

¶45

10.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶46

11.In the instant case, considering the statement of the victim (PW-01), wherein she has clearly narrated the incident in question and implicated the appellant- Kuldeep Kumar (A1) herein to be the author of the crime by stating that on the date and time of the offence, firstly appellant-Mukesh @ Pintu abducted her, took her near Batra Dam alongwith appellant- Kuldeep Kumar (A-1) and, thereafter, appellantKuldeep Kumar (A-1) committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and consent. The aforesaid statement of the victim (PW-01) has duly been supported by her mother (PW-02), who has lodged FIR (Ex.P/05) and reported the matter to the police. Further, the victim (PW01) was also subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but she remained consistent in her version and, therefore, her testimony is reliable and inspire confidence. The said stand of the victim (PW-01) is also supported by forensic evidence

¶47

available on record i.e. FSL report

¶48

8

¶49

(Ex.P/23), wherein it has mentioned that stains of human sperm/semen were only found on victim’s slide and undergarment as also on the undergarment of the appellant. Further, according to the copy of relevant page of Dakhila Kharij Register of the victim (PW-01) [Ex.P/11C], her date of birth has been recorded as 28.08.2003, meaning thereby, the victim (PW-01) was minor aged about 12 years 06 months on the date of offence. As such, on the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellantKuldeep Kumar (A-1) is guilty of having committed sexual intercourse with the minor victim (PW-01), is strictly in accordance with law, for which, he has rightly been convicted and sentenced. We do not find any illegality or perversity in findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding.

¶50

12.It is stated by learned counsel for appellant Kuldeep Kumar (A-1) that he has already served the entire jail sentence. Considering the fact that appellant Kuldeep Kumar (A-1) has already served the entire jail sentence and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of appellant Kuldeep Kumar (A-1) from R.I. for 3-3 years to R.I. for 3-3 months for the

¶51

9

¶52

offences punishable under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC and to reduce the sentence of appellant Mukesh Kumar (A-2) from R.I. for 3-3 years to R.I. for 3-3 months for the offences punishable under Sections 363 & 366(A) of IPC. However, the fine imposed upon each of the appellants by the trial Court shall remain intact.

¶53

13. As a consequence, with aforesaid modification in the sentence, both Criminal Appeals No.1498/2017 & 1772/2019 stands finally disposed of to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶54

14.Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original records be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary action, if any.

¶55

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge

¶56

H.L. Sahu

Mukesh Kumar Manikpuri @ Pintu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Manikpuri @ Pintu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neelamber Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sidhi Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vasna Agriya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kuldeep Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh