Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 21 (MP)

Rahul @ Umesh Hada v. State of M. P.

2015-01-06

ALOK VERMA

body2015
ORDER 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved of the judgment dated 18.8.2010, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Sessions Trial No.104/2010, whereby he has been convicted under sections 376, 506-II and 342 of IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 376 of IPC, 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- under section 506-II of IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 342 of IPC. 2. According to the prosecution story, the prosecutrix who was only 14 years of age at the time of incident, reported on 6.3.2010, at Police Station Sarangpur, district Shajapur that on 24.2.2010 at about 3 p.m., the present appellant came to her house, where she was working in a flour mill that was installed in the house itself and asked that the sister of the present appellant and friend of the prosecutrix Harshita was calling her. Believing him, she went to the house of the present appellant, but Harshita was not there. The present appellant took her to a room inside the house, bolted the room from inside and committed rape on her. He further threatened her that if she discloses the incident to anybody, he would kill her father. 3. Further as per the story of the prosecution, after the incident, the appellant alongwith other co-accused came to her flour mill and threatened her that she should send her sister to them otherwise they would defame them. After some time, she narrated the incident to her parents and her brother and the matter was reported on 6.3.2010 after delay of about 10 days. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after recording the evidence of the prosecution and the defence found the present appellant guilty under sections 376, 506-II and 342 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved by such conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed on the ground that in any manner the medical evidence do not confirm the commission of rape and the statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable. 5. Aggrieved by such conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed on the ground that in any manner the medical evidence do not confirm the commission of rape and the statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable. 5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Babu Meena AIR 2013 SC 2207 in which it was held that conviction can be based on statement of solitary witness provided the statement is reliable. This principle applies with greater vigour in case of offence committed in seclusion. The Hon'ble Court further held that if medical and FSL report does not support the allegation of rape, the acquittal of the accused is proper. He also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Rajoo and others v. State of M.P. AIR 2009 SC 858 in which it was held that the prosecutrix alleged that she was raped by 13 persons, one after the other and still there was no marks of injury on her body, acquittal in such cases is proper. He relies on another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand AIR 2013 SC 1497 and judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.363/1997 dated 16.9.2014. 6. In all these cases, the statement of the prosecutrix was not found reliable. However, in this case, it is true that in the medical evidence, no specific opinion was given by the doctor, who examined the prosecutrix on 6.3.2010 at 5.50 p.m. However, marks of violence was found on her body. There were bruises on right forearm, thigh and left upper arm etc. and also on her private parts. This apart, her hymen was found torn partly with swelling after ten days of incident. So far as FSL report is concerned, it was not expected that after ten days human sperms can be found in the body of an unmarried girl aging 14 years. In such circumstances, merely absence of human sperm in the body of the prosecutrix do not make her statement unreliable. So far as her oral statement is concerned, she was examined as PW1 and she was cross examined in detail. There is no omission found in her statement and there is no discrepancies in her statement recorded under section 161 CrPC. So far as her oral statement is concerned, she was examined as PW1 and she was cross examined in detail. There is no omission found in her statement and there is no discrepancies in her statement recorded under section 161 CrPC. 7. Whatever omissions and contradictions are found in her statement are not of much importance. Her statement was considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in detail and the learned Judge found her statement reliable. In my opinion also since her statement is supported by medical evidence, it may be relied upon and conviction can be based on her statement. So far as delay in filing of the FIR is concerned, in case where a girl of 14 years of age is raped, such a delay is normal. She stated in her statement that she was threatened by the present accused. He also visited her flour mill next day with two other co-accused and again threatened her and therefore taking all the factors into consideration, I find that the delay in filing of the FIR is not fatal in the present case and delay is fully explained by the prosecutrix and other attending circumstances. 8. As such, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment. This appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The conviction and sentence passed by the impugned judgment are confirmed. P. K. Saxena with Sunil Verma for appellant; Ms. Mamta Shandilya, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.