Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 133 (MP)

Lalman Mishra v. State of M. P.

2016-02-18

C.V.SIRPURKAR

body2016
ORDER 1. This criminal revision filed on behalf of the petitioner accused Lalman Mishra, is directed against order dated 9.9.2014 passed by the Court of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No.244/2013, whereby charges under section 376(2) (g), 506 Part (II) and 392 of the IPC have been framed against the petitioner Lalman Mishra and coaccused Kesri Prasad. 2. As per prosecution case, the prosecutrix, who was a married and pregnant lady aged about 25 years, was returning to her village from Dussera fair at around 10:00 pm on 17-10-2010. The petitioner Lalman and co-accused Kesri Prasad gave her a lift on their motorcycle. On the way back, they forcibly took her inside the Jungle and repeatedly raped her till about 3:00 am. Somehow, she escaped from their clutches and returned home. 3. The order framing charge has been assailed on behalf of the petitioner Lalman mainly on the ground that the prosecutrix was not acquainted with the petitioner Lalman from before the incident. He was not named either in the FIR lodged after a delay of three days nor was he named in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a week after the incident. In the First Information Report and the statement under section 161 of CrPC, the prosecutrix has stated that she did not recognize companion of co-accused Kesri Prasad, who was driving the motorcycle. However, more than two months after the date of the incident i.e. on 20.12.2010, additional statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under section 161 of the CrPC, wherein she disclosed that the un-named co-accused was in fact petitioner Lalman, who had approached her three days before the additional statement for compromise and had offered to pay her Rs.25,000/- in return for her silence. The prosecutrix stated in her additional statement to the police that petitioner Lalman had offered to pay her more money if she would not disclose the name of petitioner Lalman to the police. 4. In aforesaid view of the matter, it has been contended that no charge can be framed against co-accused on the basis of such delayed and apparently unreliable additional statements under section 161 of the CrPC. 4. In aforesaid view of the matter, it has been contended that no charge can be framed against co-accused on the basis of such delayed and apparently unreliable additional statements under section 161 of the CrPC. It has also been argued that proper course for the police to adopt was to have conducted a test identification parade, so as to eliminate the possibility of false implication; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be discharged. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned order inviting attention of the Court to the statements of prosecution witnesses Vishwanath and Umashanker. On due consideration of the rival contention and perusal of the copies of the final report and the documents filed therewith, the Court is of the view that this criminal revision must fail for the reasons hereinafter stated. 6. It is true that the prosecutrix has not named petitioner Lalman in the written report lodged three days after the date of incident and in her initial statement under section 161 CrPC, recorded a week after the incident. However, she had stated that she was in a position to recognize the unnamed co-accused person, who was driving motorcycle and who had raped her more than once, if he were to be brought before her. It is also true that no identification parade was conducted. However, statements of prosecution witnesses Vishwanath and Umashanker reveal that at around 9:30 p.m. on Dussera evening, Vishwanath was sitting at the road side shop of the Umashanker at village Guruharu and they saw petitioner Lalman and co-accused Kesri Prasad giving lift to the prosecutrix on the motorcycle being driven by petitioner Lalman. These witnesses were acquainted with the petitioner Lalman and had also noted the registration number of his motorcycle. Thus, from the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses, prima facie, it is clear that it was petitioner Lalman, who was companion of co-accused Kesri Prasad and both of them had taken the prosecutrix on motorcycle on the pretext of dropping her at her village. 7. Thus, from the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses, prima facie, it is clear that it was petitioner Lalman, who was companion of co-accused Kesri Prasad and both of them had taken the prosecutrix on motorcycle on the pretext of dropping her at her village. 7. At the stage of charge even a very strong suspicion founded upon the material before the Court, which leads to forming presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence, may justify framing of charges against accused (please see Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others. AIR 1980 SC 52 ). 8. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that this criminal revision is devoid of merits. Consequently, it is dismissed.