Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 14 (MP)

Guddaiya v. State of M. P.

2010-01-05

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. The appellants have preferred this appeallp1der section 374 (2) of Cr. P. C. aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.5.2006 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in sessions trial No. 296/05 whereby held both the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under section 376 (2).(g) of IPC and sentenced each of them to ten years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further ordered to suffer imprisonment for one year. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 24.8.2005 at about 5.00 p.m. at village Tejakhedi, the complainant-prosecutrix, admittedly a married lady of37 years was in her field and cutting grass, at that time both the appellant accused came there, caught hold the complainant-prosecutrix, took her in the field to some distance and thereafter committed rape on her. After the said act both the accused also threatened the complainant-prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to anybody. The complainant-prosecutrix returned to home and narrated the incident to her father-in-law Punilal and husband Man Singh, thereafter on the next day morning FIR had been lodged at police station Jamner, district Guna on which basis the police had registered a case under section 376 IPC, sent the complainant-prosecutrix for medical examination to the hospital where the lady Assistant Surgeon Dr. Shalini Sharma (PW-8) examined the prosecutrix and found no external injuries on the body of the prosecutrix, also prepared two slides of vaginal discharge and after sealing it properly handed over the sealed packet to the concerning constable for its chemical examination and proved the report Ex P-10. After due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 3. Both the appellants-accused abjured the guilt and their defence is of false implication. It is also further defence that there was some dispute about right of way in between the complainant and the appellants-accused on which basis false report had been lodged against the appellants. The appellants also examined the village Patwari Kishan Singh Pawar (D W-l) as defence witness. The learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record, by impugned judgment held both the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under section 376 (2) (g) of IPC and sentenced each of them as stated here-in-above. Aggrieved by which the appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. The learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record, by impugned judgment held both the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under section 376 (2) (g) of IPC and sentenced each of them as stated here-in-above. Aggrieved by which the appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned trial Court has only appreciated uncorroborated testimony of the complainant-prosecutrix (PW-6) whereas there is also no medical support to the statement of the complainant-prosecutrix with regard to the alleged forcible act of rape on her. Similarly, all the material witnesses accepted the fact that there was some dispute in between the parties with regard to the right of way on the land and some previous litigation is also going on in between the parties and in such circumstances, looking to the enmity in between the parties, the solitary statement of the complainant-prosecutrix cannot be believed and in such circumstances, the learned trial Court committed error in holding the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence, hence prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the appellants-accused had forcibly committed rape on her. At the time of such incident, one accused had caught hold her and the other accused committed the said act of rape on the prosecutrix and in such circumstances it is not expected that the complainant -prosecutrix is able to oppose the said act of the appellants-accused due to which she can sustain any injuries on any part of her body. In such circumstances, if no injuries were found on the body of the complainant-prosecutrix that itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the statement of the complainant-prosecutrix. The FIR had been lodged promptly on the next day morning wherein the incident has been narrated by the complainant-prosecutrix. The statement of the complainant-prosecutrix has got further support by the immediate narration of the incident to her husband and father-in-law. The FIR had been lodged promptly on the next day morning wherein the incident has been narrated by the complainant-prosecutrix. The statement of the complainant-prosecutrix has got further support by the immediate narration of the incident to her husband and father-in-law. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly believed the prosecution evidence and rightly held both the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence, hence no grounds are available for any interference in the impugned judgment, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. To bring home the charge as levelled against the appellants, the statement of the complainant-prosecutrix (PW-6) is relevant, wherein she specifically stated that both the accused came there in the field, caught hold her and forcibly taken her to some distance in the field, thereafter firstly the accused Samunder had caught hold her hands, then the accused Guddaiya committed rape on her. After that the appellant Guddiya caught hold her and accused Samunder had committed rape on her. Thus, both the accused persons had committed rape on her forcibly. Due to the force applied by both the accused persons simultaneously, she cannot oppose the alleged act of the accused persons. It is true that in the cross-examination she had narrated about the injuries sustained on her wrist joint due to broken up of her bangles which has not been found on the examination of lady Dr. Shalini Sharma, but that itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix who became helpless when two young major accused caught hold her and committed the aforesaid act of rape on her. 8. It is also true that the complainant-prosecutrix (PW-6) also admitted that there was some dispute of right of way in between the parties but she clearly denied that due to the dispute of right of way she had lodged this false report against the appellants. 9. The statement of the complainant-prosecutrix (PW-6) has got further support by the statement of Man Singh, (PW-3) the husband of the prosecutrix, before whom the complainant-prosecutrix narrated the incident about the commission of rape by both the appellants and when he went to the appellants accused at that time both the appellants had also caused injuries to this witness Man Singh. Therefore, on the next day he went with the complainant to the police station Jamner and lodged· the FIR. Therefore, on the next day he went with the complainant to the police station Jamner and lodged· the FIR. Similar is the statement of Chander Singh (PW-9) before whom also the complainant-prosecutrix immediately narrated the incident. 10. The statement of complainant-prosecutrix has got further support by the FIR ExP-6 which has been lodged on the next day morning whereas the police station is situated near about 40 kms. away from the village of the complainant. In this report also specific allegations has been made against the appellants for commission of the offence of rape on the complainant. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants stressed upon the fact that it is admitted by the witness that there was some dispute of right of way in between the parties and, therefore, the solitary statement of the complainant-prosecutrix cannot be relied upon. I am not much impressed by the aforesaid statement. It is a case of gang rape wherein two persons committed rape on the prosecutrix and due to some minor dispute of right of way this cannot be inferred that a married lady can herself lodge this type of false report for commission of the gang rape by two persons and in such circumstances, the statement of the complainant-prosecutrix is found to be sufficient to held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence committed by them. 12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid appreciation of the entire evidence on record, in my considered opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly held both the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under section 376 (2) (g) of IPC and rightly sentenced them to the minimum sentence often years as provided for the offence under the IPC. No grounds are available for any reduction of the sentence also. 13. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the appellants, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed accordingly and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is affirmed.