Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 38 (MP)

Bharat v. State Of M. P.

2010-01-12

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2010
Judgment S.S.DWIVEDI, J. ( 1. ) The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28th March, 2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Sheopur in Special Sessions Trial No.75/05 whereby held the appellant / accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of IPC and sentenced him to seven years R.I. with a fine of Rs.2000/ - in default of payment of fine further ordered to suffer imprisonment for six months. ( 2. ) Briefly stated facts of the case are on 28.8.2005, the complainant / prosecutrix went to her field for cutting the grass and, thereafter, when she was returning to her home, at that time, the appellant/accused came there caught hold the complainant prosecutrix and took her to nearby field and, thereafter, committed rape on her. The incident was narrated by the complainant prosecutrix to her mother Kasturibai and Ramdeen. Thereafter, the F.I.R. had been lodged at the Police Station, Vijaypur, on which basis, police had registered a case under Section 376 of IPC. Sent the complainant / prosecutrix for medical examination to the Govt, hospital, where, the lady Assistant Surgeon, Seema Lakhda (P.W7) examined the complainant / prosecutrix and prepared the slide of vaginal discharge and after sealing it, handed over to the Constable concerned for the chemical examination and proved the examination report Ex.P-4. After due investigation charge-sheet has been filed. ( 3. ) The appellant/accused abjured the guilt and his defence is of false implication. The learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record held the appellant/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him as stated herein-above. Aggrieved by which, the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 4. ) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Public prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record. ( 5. ) It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that there is no corroboration available by the medical evidence with regard to the injuries sustained to the complianant / prosecutrix in this incident of forcible rape. The FIR is also delayed by 24 hours for which also no reasonable explanation is on record. ( 5. ) It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that there is no corroboration available by the medical evidence with regard to the injuries sustained to the complianant / prosecutrix in this incident of forcible rape. The FIR is also delayed by 24 hours for which also no reasonable explanation is on record. The complainant / prosecutrix is a major married lady and if no corroboration is available then the learned trial Court has wrongly believed the solitary statement of the prosecutrix and wrongly held the appellant/accused guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial ( 6. ) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 7. ) To bring home the charge as levelled against the appellant, the prosecution had examined the complainant / prosecurix (P.W1), who clearly stated that when she was returning to home, on the way, the appellant/accused came there, caught hold her and took her to nearby field and, thereafter, committed rape on her. When she started crying, at that time, her mother Kasturibai and one Ramdeen came there and on seeing them, the appellant / accused ran away from the spot. She also narrated the incident to her father. When they were going to lodge the report, at that time, the appellant/accused was standing in front of his house with a gun and threatened her if she reported the matter to the Police Station, he will kill them by the gun. She could not went to the Police for lodging of the report. After two days, she lodged the report at Police Station vljaypur which is Ex.P-1. In detailed cross examination, she denied the fact that due to some previous enmity, this false report has been lodged by her against the appellant/accused. She also denied that at the instigation of the appellants father Jagdish one Ramdulari had lodged a report against her father. No such report was produced in defence by the appellant/accused. Therefore, the allegation for false implication of the accused by the complainant prosecutrix is not proved in her detailed cross examination. ( 8. She also denied that at the instigation of the appellants father Jagdish one Ramdulari had lodged a report against her father. No such report was produced in defence by the appellant/accused. Therefore, the allegation for false implication of the accused by the complainant prosecutrix is not proved in her detailed cross examination. ( 8. ) The statement of complainant / prosecutrix has got further support by the statement of Kasturibai (P.W2), who was also coming to her home from the field and saw the appellant accused lying on her daughter and her daughter was crying. Thereafter, her daughter, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her and appellant accused committed rape on her. In the detailed cross examination of the witness Kasturibai (PW2) also denied the suggestion that due to some previous enmity of false report had been lodged by the complainant against the appellant. Similarly, the third witness Ramdeen also saw the appellant/accused lying on the complainant and on seeing him, the appellant accused ran away from the spot. Nothing substantial came in the statement of this witnesses Kasturibai (P.W2) and Ramdeen (PW3) on which basis their statement against the appellant can be disbelieved. ( 9. ) Murari (P.W5) is the father of the complainant / prosecutrix before whom the complainant narrated the incident and, he also proved the reason for delay in lodging of the FIR that when they were going to lodge the report, at that time, the appellant/accused Bharat armed with a gun, threatened them if they lodged the report then he will kill them by the gun. ( 10. ) It is true that on medical examination of the complainant by Dr. Seema Lakhda (P.W7), she had not found any injuries on the body of the complainant / prosecutrix. Therefore, it is vehemently argued by the counsel for the appellant that if no medical support is available then certainly the solitary statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed. I am not much impressed by the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the appellant. In case of rape, if the statement of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy then, no medical corroboration is also required. For this proposition, the reliance can be placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in B.C. Deva Vs. I am not much impressed by the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the appellant. In case of rape, if the statement of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy then, no medical corroboration is also required. For this proposition, the reliance can be placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in B.C. Deva Vs. State of Karnataka ( (2007) 12 S.C.C. 122 ; (2(2008) 2 SCC Criminal 53), wherein, the Honble Apex Court has led that "absence of marks of injury on the person of the prosecutrix does not mean to any inference that accused has not committed forcible sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix". ( 11. ) In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the opinion of this Court, the statement of prosecutrix found to be trustworthy and it is proved that it is the appellant/accused who has committed forcibly intercourse on the complainant / prosecutrix and, thereafter, committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. ( 12. ) It is submitted on behalf of the appellant with regard to the delay in lodging of the FIR for which as discussed herein-above, the reasonable explanation has been given by the complainant / prosecutrix as well as by his father Murari (PW5) that when they were going to lodge the report, appellant/accused armed with a gun and threatened them to be killed. In such circumstances, the reasonable explanation is on record, therefore, the delay in lodging of the FIR is also not found to be fetal for the prosecution. ( 13. ) Thus, on over all reappreciation of the entire evidence, on record, my considered opinion, the prosecution has proved the fact that the appellant/accused has committed rape on the complainant / prosecutrix and thus the trial Court has rightly held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. ( 14. ) With regard to the sentence is concerned, the appellant / accused is a major person and it is presumed that he know the consequences of such a criminal act and in such circumstances, no material circumstances is on record on which basis the minimum sentence provided for the offence under Section 376 of IPC can be reduced any further. ( 15. ( 15. ) Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the appellant being devoid of any merit, is dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is confirmed.