Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nannu Dhanak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
1 CRA-1659-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1659 of 2016
NANNU DHANAK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Choubey - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Reserved on : 10/03/2026
Delivered on : 09/04/2026
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Ratnesh Chanra Singh Bisen
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.5422/2026, which is second application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant Nannu Dhanak..
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.5422/2026 is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is
heard finally.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
2 CRA-1659-2016
4. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of
the judgment dated 16/03/2016 passed by the learned Sessions/Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Sagar, District Sagar (M.P.) in Special Session
Trial No.166/2014, whereby appellant stands convicted and sentenced
as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
in lieu of fine
R.I. for 3 R.I. for 6
363 I.P.C. Rs.5,000/-
years months
R.I. for R.I. for 06
366 I.P.C. Rs.5,000/-
5 years months
Life R.I. for 6
376(2)(i) I.P.C. Rs.5,000/-
Imprisonment months
Life R.I. for 6
376(2)(n) I.P.C. Rs.5,000/-
Imprisonment months
5(L) r/w POCSO Life R.I. for 6
Rs.5,000/-
Section 6 Act Imprisonment months
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment/order
of conviction dated 16.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions/Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Sagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 166/2014 is
illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence available on record. The
learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant under Sections
363, 366, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(L)
read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 without properly appreciating the evidence and the material
contradictions in the prosecution case. The conviction has been recorded
in the absence of any independent or reliable evidence and merely on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
3 CRA-1659-2016
the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, which itself suffers from
material omissions and contradictions. The prosecutrix in her testimony
has stated that her father asked her to lodge a false report against the
appellant, which raises serious doubt about the veracity of the
prosecution story. It is further submitted that the other prosecution
witnesses are hearsay witnesses having no direct knowledge of the
alleged incident. The learned Trial Court failed to consider these
important aspects and improperly appreciated the evidence on record. It
is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and where doubt exists, the
benefit must go to the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has
failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt;
therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside
and the appellant deserves to be acquitted in the interest of justice.
6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the
prayer made by counsel for the appellant and supported the judgment
passed by the learned trial Court.
7. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Victim (PW-1) stated that she was 13 years old. She deposed that on
the night of the incident, when she was sleeping in the courtyard of her
house, then at about 12:00 midnight, the accused Nannu came to her
house, gagged her and forcibly took her away while threatening to
commit obscene acts with her. She stated that the accused took her on
foot through the forest throughout the night and the next morning they
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
4 CRA-1659-2016
reached Sodia village, where they stayed for one night at the house of a
relative of the accused. During the night, the accused removed her
salwar-kameez and undergarments, removed his own clothes and
forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her against her will ten
times. She further stated that on the following day the accused took her
many places and committed sexual intercourse with her. On the third
day, he allegedly took her to Chaturbhata village and stayed in a room at
the house of one of his relatives where he again committed sexual
assault during the night and about one month later her father arrived at
Chaturbhata along with the police, then police had taken her and
accused to Police Station Jaisinghnagar and prepared a seizure memo
and obtained her thumb impression. She further stated that she was sent
for medical examination to Sagar District Hospital where a lady doctor
examined her private part and an X-ray was conducted, after which she
was handed over to her father. In para 7 of her cross-examination she
stated that she is four brothers and one sister and she is eldest of them.
One of his brothers is four years old, one is three, one is seven years and
one is five years. Thus, there is no any contradictory in her cross-
examination on basis of which we draw the conclusion that victim age
was 18 years on the date of incident. This witness has been cross-
examined by the defence in detail, but nothing was found in her cross-
examination on the basis of which accused can get the benefit.
9. Mother of Victim (PW-2) supported the version of victim (PW-1)
in her examination-in-chief and said that victim age was 13 years. In her
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
5 CRA-1659-2016
cross-examination she stated that she told the age of the victim on her
own guessing that victim age is 15 years.
10. Father of Victim (PW-3) deposed that the victim age is 14 years
and he has no knowledge about the date of birth of the victim and she
did not study in any school.
11. The uncle of victim (PW-4) deposed that the age of the victim is
near about 15 to 16 years and in his cross-examination, he expressed
that victim went to school for a year and her mark-sheet was kept in
house. They did not give the mark-sheet to the police.
12. Uncle of the victim (PW-5) stated that victim age is near about 10
to 12 years. In his cross-examination on behalf of the accused the age of
the victim was not challenged.
13. Dr. Sudhir Jain (PW-8) deposed that on 14.07.2014, he was
posted as a Radiologist in the X-Ray Department of District Hospital,
Sagar and he determined the age of victim as 15 to 16 years on the basis
of ossification test. There was no evidence against the aforesaid
evidence produced by the prosecution regarding the age of the victim.
After analyzing the evidence which was adduced by the prosecution and
looking to the ossification test report, it appears that the prosecutrix age
on the date of incident was less than 18 years and more than 16 years.
14. Mother of victim (PW-3) and father of victim (PW-4) both stated
that after getting victim told that accused had committed sexual
intercourse with her and due to which, the blood was oozing from her
private part. Uncle of victim (PW-4) has also supported the versions of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
6 CRA-1659-2016
mother of victim (PW-2) and father of victim (PW-3) and stated that
when he asked the victim, she told him that accused Nannu had
committed wrong act with her.
15. Pappu (PW-5) and Kallu (PW-7) both witnesses have been
declared hostile by prosecution and asked the leading question, but they
did not support the prosecution version.
16. Dr. J. S. Dhakad (PW-6) deposed that he was working as Medical
Officer in Community Health Centre Jaisinghnagar since 2004. He
deposed that on 13.07.2014, when the accused Nannu Dhanak, aged 45
years, was brought by constable Ramkripal No. 611 of Police Station
Jaisinagar, he conducted his medical examination and found that
accused was a fully grown adult, with fully developed genitals. A semen
slide was prepared and given to the concerned constable. This witness
opined that the accused was fully capable of sexual intercourse. His
report is Ex.P-1.
17. Harish Kumar (PW-9) deposed that he was posted as Head
Constable at Police Station Jaisinghnagar from 08 August 2012 to
November 2014. He stated that on 13.07.2014, when Constable
Ramkripal No. 811 brought certain articles to the police station, he
seized a sealed packet and a sealed sample said to contain a semen slide
of Nannu in the presence of witnesses. Seizure memo is Ex.P-4. On the
same date, he also seized the sealed slide of the prosecutrix along with a
sealed packet and sealed sample of her undergarments received from
District Hospital, Sagar, which was produced by Contable Sevakram
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
7 CRA-1659-2016
Tiwari No.1015. Seizure memo is Ex.P-5.
18. H.R. Gangele (PW-10) deposed that he was posted as Assistant
Sub-Inspector at Police Station Jaisinghnagar from 2013 to January
2015. He deposed that on 28.06.2014 a missing person report No. 20/14
was lodged regarding victim, who had been missing since 27.06.2014.
During investigation he prepared the investigation report (Ex.P-7) and
upon finding prima facie involvement of the accused Nannu, registered
Crime No. 123/14 under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. FIR is Ex.P-8. After the
prosecutrix was recovered from village Chaturbhata on 12.07.2014, he
prepared the recovery panchnama (Ex.P-9), sent her for medical
examination to Government Hospital, Sagar through application Ex.P-
10. On the same date, he had gone to the place of occurrence at Village
Ghughar and prepared a site map of the place of incident, which is
Ex.P-2 and handed over the prosecutrix to her parents through a
supurdginama (Ex.P-11). He further deposed that he recorded statements
of witnesses and the prosecutrix, arrested the accused on 13.07.2014 and
prepared the arrest memo (Ex.P-12). He sent the seized articles for
forensic examination through the Superintendent of Police, Sagar, with
the forwarding letter (Ex.P-13) and the FSL report is Ex.P-14.
19. Dr. Lata Laxmi (PW-11) deposed that she was posted as Medical
Officer at District Hospital, Sagar, on 12.07.2014. She deposed that on
12.07.2014 victim, aged about 15 years, was brought for medical
examination by Female Constable Pratibha. On examination, she found
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
8 CRA-1659-2016
and observed that the hymen was torn at the 8 and 11 o’clock positions
with two fingers easily passing through the vagina. The uterus was
normal in size. Two vaginal slides were prepared and sealed, and the
prosecutrix’s undergarment was seized and handed over to the above
female constable for forensic analysis. In her opinion (Ex.P-15), no
definite conclusion regarding recent sexual intercourse with the victim
can be given because the hymen was torn and two fingers easily
penetrated into the vagina. She appears to have experienced sexual
intercourse. For confirmation slides were prepared and sent for chemical
test. Her report in this regard is Ex.P-15. Thus, from the evidence of this
witness, it appears that victim hymen was torn and entered two fingers in
her vagina. The aforesaid opinion is corroborated by the victim (PW-1)
that accused person had committed many time sexual intercourse with
her and it also appears that the victim was recovered from the custody of
accused after near about 15 days from the date of incident.
20. The appellant’s counsel mainly argued that the victim (PW-1)
admitted in her cross-examination that before the incident, the accused
used to give her father one thousand rupees every week. He also used to
give money to her grandfather and the household expenses were met
from that money. It was further argued that when the accused demanded
back that money, the victim’s father lodged a false report against him.
On this basis, it was contended that the entire prosecution case becomes
doubtful.
21. In relation to the above argument, if the entire evidence of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
9 CRA-1659-2016
victim (PW-1), the victim’s mother (PW-2) and the victim’s father (PW-
3) is considered, it becomes clear that the victim’s mother (PW-2) in
paragraph 6 of her cross-examination denied the suggestion that the
accused used to give money for their household expenses. Similarly, the
victim’s father (PW-3) in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination also
denied the suggestion that the accused had given money to his father.
However, he admitted the suggestion that the accused used to give one
thousand rupees every week for household expenses and the household
was running from that money. Therefore, the above argument raised on
behalf of the appellant has no merit.
22. In addition, if the entire evidence of the victim (PW-1), the
victim’s mother (PW-2) and the victim’s father (PW-3) is considered, it
is evident that in paragraph 8 of the cross-examination of the victim
(PW-1), a suggestion was made on behalf of the accused himself that on
the very day of the incident, the accused had come to her house and took
her away after tying her eyes. In other words, he himself admits that he
took the victim from her house. At the same time, the victim (PW-1) in
paragraph 12 of her cross-examination clearly denied the suggestion that
the accused had never done any bad act with her. Similarly, in paragraph
7 of the cross-examination of the victim’s mother (PW-2), a suggestion
was made that her daughter had told her that she had relations with the
accused even before the incident and that she had told this to her
husband and father-in-law, after which they scolded the accused.
Likewise, in paragraph 8 of the cross-examination she stated that her
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
10 CRA-1659-2016
daughter returned eight days after going with the accused and told them
that the accused had done wrong acts with her.
23. Further, from the examination of the FSL report (Ex.P-14), it is
clear that human spermatozoa were found on the victim’s slide and
underwear as well as on the accused’s slide. Thus, Ex.P-14 corroborates
the statement of the victim (PW-1). After the above analysis, the
argument advanced by the appellant is of no significance and is not
acceptable.
24. After considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by
the prosecution, it is revealed that on 27.06.2014 at around midnight,
while the victim was sleeping in the courtyard of her house, the accused
entered the courtyard, gagged the victim, and abducted her. He took her
to his relative’s house, where he committed rape upon her. The evidence
further shows that the accused kept the victim in his possession for
approximately 15 days, during which he raped her multiple times. Upon
being found, the victim narrated the entire incident to her parents and
uncles. This is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Lata Laxmi (PW-11),
who, upon examining the victim, found her hymen torn and noted that
two fingers could easily be inserted into her private parts. The FSL
report (Ex. P-14) further confirms the presence of human semen on
slides and the victim’s underwear.
25. The testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is consistent, cogent and
inspires confidence. She has categorically stated that the appellant
gagged her and forcibly took her away from the courtyard of her house
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
11 CRA-1659-2016
during the night and thereafter kept her in his custody for several days,
during which period he committed sexual intercourse with her
repeatedly. Despite detailed cross-examination, nothing material has
been elicited to discredit her testimony or to create any doubt regarding
the truthfulness of her version. The evidence on record also establishes
that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident. The
statements of her parents and relatives, coupled with the medical
opinion of the radiologist based on the ossification test, indicate that the
prosecutrix was about 15 to 16 years of age. In the absence of any
cogent evidence to the contrary, it is evident that the prosecutrix was
below 18 years of age at the time of incidence. Consequently, her
consent, if any, would be immaterial in the eyes of law.
26. The medical evidence further lends support to the prosecution
case. The doctor who examined the prosecutrix found that her hymen
was torn and that two fingers could easily pass through the vagina,
suggesting that she had experienced sexual intercourse. Moreover, the
forensic science laboratory report confirms the presence of human
spermatozoa on the slides and undergarments of the prosecutrix, which
corroborates the allegation of sexual intercourse.
27. It is true that some of the prosecution witnesses were declared
hostile; however, that by itself does not demolish the prosecution case
when the testimony of the prosecutrix is reliable and is supported by
medical and scientific evidence. It is a settled principle of law that
conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
12 CRA-1659-2016
found trustworthy and credible.
28. On an overall appreciation of the evidence available on record,
this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved that the
appellant abducted the minor prosecutrix and committed sexual
intercourse with her repeatedly. The learned Trial Court has rightly
appreciated the evidence and has correctly convicted under Sections
363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of POCSO
Act.
29. From the perusal of judgment and record the trial court, it is clear
that the incident took place in the year 2014. The allegation against the
accused that he has repeatedly raped with victim during the period dated
27 June 2014 to 12 July 2014.
30. At the time when the above crime was committed by the accused,
the age of the victim was less than 18 years and more than 16 years.
Section 376 of the IPC was amended in the year 2013, according to
which if a person rapes a woman more than once, that is, repeatedly,
then that person shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment under
Section 376 (2)(n)of the IPC, the period of which shall not be less than
10 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall
mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life and
shall also be liable to fine. This shows that it is not mandatory to
sentence the accused to life imprisonment. In such a situation, if the
accused is given a punishment of 10 years imprisonment instead of life
imprisonment, it would be valid. It is also necessary to mention here that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
13 CRA-1659-2016
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 has been
amended in the year 2019. Before the amendment, Section 6 was as
follows:-
“Whoever, commits aggravated, penetrative sexual assault,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend
to imprisonment heart, life, and sell, also be liable to fine”
31. Thus, it is clear from the provision of Section 6 before the
amendment that it is not mandatory to sentence the accused to life
imprisonment, rather it would be more appropriate if the accused is
sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
32. In so far as the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 376
of the Indian Penal Code has been awarded by the trial court for the
entire natural life of the accused. No reason has been shown in this
regard. In this regard, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Review
Petition (Crl.) No.282/2022 in Criminal Appeal No.612/2019) in
paragraph 6 and 7 are important, which are as follows:-
“6. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the
punishments prescribed for the offences under Sections
376(2)(i), 376(2)(m) and under Section 376(A) of IPC as alsoSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2784614 CRA-1659-2016
for the offence under Section 5 (i) and Section 5 (m) read
with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, for which the petitioner-
accused has held guilty and punished, and to the observations
made by this Court in the judgment dated 19.04.2022, it
appears that the Court, while commuting the sentence of
death for the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC, and while imposing
sentence to undergo imprisonment for 20 years and not
imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the
offence under Section 376A, IPC, had tried to balance the
scales of retributive justice and restorative justice. The Court,
at the same time had confirmed the conviction and sentence
recorded by the Courts below for the other offences under the
IPC and the POCSO Act which included offence under
Sections 376(i) and 376(m) of IPC and Section 5 (i) and 5 (m)
read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. Hence, as rightly
submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Marlapalle, if
the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Sessions
Court and confirmed by the High Court, is also confirmed by
this Court for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)
(m), IPC and for the offence under Section 5 (i) and 5 (m)
read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, then the life
imprisonment would mean imprisonment for the remainder of
the petitioner’s (original appellant’s) natural life, and in thatSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2784615 CRA-1659-2016
case, the very purpose of the court in not imposing the
sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of
petitioner’s life for the offence under Section 376(A) of IPC,
would be frustrated. The Court had consciously imposed the
sentence of twenty years for the offence under Section 376A
for the reasons stated in the judgment. The Court therefore is
inclined to accept the submissions of Mr. Marlapalle, and to
modify the sentence imposed for the offence under Sections
376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC and for the offence under
Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO
Act, so as to commensurate the said sentences with the
sentence imposed for the offence under Section 376(A) of
IPC, and accordingly imposes sentence directing the
appellant/petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of
twenty years instead of life imprisonment for the said
offences.
7. The upshot of this order would be that the appellant-
petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
20 years for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)
(m) of IPC, and for a period of 20 years for the offence under
Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO
Act. The judgment and order dated 19.04.2022 passed by this
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2019 stands corrected
and modified to the aforesaid extent. The rest of the judgment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
16 CRA-1659-2016
shall remain unchanged.”
33. Similarly, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Pintu Thakur alias Ravi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh; 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1296 in paragraph 7, 8 and 9 are important, which are as
follows:-
“7. On a reading of the same, we find that the minimum
punishment delineated under the said Section is twenty years
but which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall
mean imprisonment for remainder of natural life of the
accused and shall be liable to fine or with death. The Special
Court has not ordered death penalty but has not considered
any mitigating circumstance in the instant case, instead the
higher punishment of life imprisonment for the remainder of
natural life of the person has been imposed which has been
affirmed by the High Court.
8. However, the minimum sentence under Section 6 of the
POCSO Act is twenty years. Bearing in mind the fact that the
appellants herein were in their early twenties when the
incident took place and the fact that now they have completed
only five years of incarceration and even for completion of
the minimum sentence it would mean another fifteen years,
we find that the appellants are now in their mid-twenties and
even if the minimum sentence is to be completed they wouldSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2784617 CRA-1659-2016
be in their early forties.
9. We find that the interest of justice would be served in the
instant case, if we reduce the sentence imposed on them from
imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the
remainder of natural life to twenty years.”
34. In the context of the above provisions and the principle laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Firoz
(supra)and Pintu Thakur alias Ravi(Supra), we find that the interest of
justice would be served in the instant case if we reduce the sentence
imposed on appellant under section 376(2)(n) of IPC imprisonment for
life, which shall mean imprisonment for the life, which shall
imprisonment for the reminder of natural life to 10 years. Similarly, we
reduced the sentence imposed appellant under section 6 of the protection
of children from sexual offences act imprisonment for life, to ten years.
35. The trial court separately convicted the accused under Section
376(2)(i) of the IPC, considering the victim to be below 16 years of age
and the accused has been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of
R.5000/-. Whereas while considering the point of age of the victim, it
was found that the age of the victim was more than 16 years and less
than 18 years. In such circumstances, the trial court has convicted and
punished the accused under Section 376(2)(i)of the Indian Penal Code is
set aside.
36. The upshot of this order would be that the appellant shall undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for the offence under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27846
18 CRA-1659-2016
Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of
POCSO Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The judgment
dated 16.03.2016 passed by trial Court in S.T. No.166/2014 stands
corrected and modified to the aforesaid extent. The rest of the judgment
shall remain unchanged.
37. In view of aforesaid, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.
38. Record of the trial Court be sent back.
(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE
JUDGE
sp/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 09-04-2026
18:28:51