Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 868 (MP)

Gudda alias Brajmohan v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2004-10-29

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13-3-2001 passed by Special Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 139 of 1996 convicting the appellant under Section 376 (2) (g) of Indian Penal Code (for short "ipc"), the appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring an appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ( 2. ) TWO persons were arrayed as accused persons. They are namely present appellant Gudda alias Brajmohan and another Balli alias Rajesh. Since present appellant was absconding accused Balli alias Rajesh was tried and he was convicted by judgment dated 1-2-1997 by the Trial Court holding that he committed the offence under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of ten years. Accused Balli alias Rajesh assailed his judgment of conviction by preferring an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 1997) to this Court which was dismissed on 11-2-1998. After arrest, present appellant was separately tried and the impugned judgment has been passed against him by the Trial Court. ( 3. ) THE case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 14th and 15th of July, 1996 present appellant and co- accused Balli alias Rajesh armed with sword entered inside the house of prosecutrix and after using force and overpowering the husband of prosecutrix wrongfully confined him and the nephew of prosecutrix, inside a room and thereafter committed rape one by one over her. On account of the vile act committed by the accused persons there was bleeding from the vagina of prosecutrix. Later on the husband of prosecutrix anyhow came out from the room and ran to the police station. The police party immediately reached on the spot and caught hold accused Balli Yaddav at the spot. However, present appellant managed to escape. ( 4. ) THE prosecutrix lodged the FIR and thereafter the matter was investigated. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination, the spot map was prepared, necessary articles were seized, statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused was arrested. ( 5. ) AFTER completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the Competent Court which committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the Trial Court for trial. ( 6. ( 5. ) AFTER completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the Competent Court which committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the Trial Court for trial. ( 6. ) THE Trial Court after perusing the charge-sheet framed charge under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC which was denied by the appellant. Thereafter the prosecution examined its witnesses. ( 7. ) THE Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came to hold that the appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted him, and passed sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment. Hence this appeal. ( 8. ) I have heard Shri V. K. Lakhera, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Gitesh Singh Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 9. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. In a case either under Section 376 or under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC, the evidence of prosecutrix is material. It is well settled in law that if the evidence of prosecutrix is clear, cogent and trustworthy, the conviction can be accorded on the basis of her sole testimony without any corroboration. ( 10. ) IN the present case there is clear evidence of prosecutrix that she was brutally ravished by the accused persons. The present appellant committed rape once and the convicted co-accused committed rape twice in presence of her husband and nephew. According to her statement accused persons managed to enter inside the house and thereafter they overpowered her husband and nephew. Both of them were confined in a room and the door was bolted from outside. Thereafter both the accused persons committed rape over her, as a result of which blood was oozing from her vagina. ( 11. ) THE evidence of prosecutrix is corroborated from the medical evidence. The lady doctor in her report found that blood was oozing from the vagina of prosecutrix. It be noted that prosecutrix was immediately sent for medical examination. There is specific evidence of prosecutrix that on the point of sword rape was committed by the abovesaid two accused persons. After giving my anxious and bestowed consideration, I am unable to hold that the evidence of prosecutrix is not worth reliance. It be noted that prosecutrix was immediately sent for medical examination. There is specific evidence of prosecutrix that on the point of sword rape was committed by the abovesaid two accused persons. After giving my anxious and bestowed consideration, I am unable to hold that the evidence of prosecutrix is not worth reliance. On the contrary it is found to be clear, cogent and trustworthy. The Trial Court did not commit any error in holding that the gang rape was committed over the prosecutrix and she was ravished by present appellant as well as by other co-accused Balli alias Rajesh who has already been convicted. I see no reason to disbelieve the reasonings assigned by the Trial Court. ( 12. ) IN the result the appeal is found to be devoid of any substance. The same is dismissed.