Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 944 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Pappu Shirpal Singh

2018-11-01

MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR, P.K.JAISWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT Jaiswal, J.--1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State against the acquittal of respondent-Pappu @ Shirpal Singh, by the impugned judgment dated 9.5.2001, passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sehore (MP), in Special Cri. Case No. 71/2000, by which, he has been acquitted under sections 376(2)(f) read with section 511 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) and section 3(2)(f) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. As per prosecution story, prosecutrix (PW1) is the member of Scheduled Caste. On 29.3.2000, at about 5:00 p.m., when she was grazing her she-goat near culvert of Mangilal Rajput, accused-respondent came there and forced her to go along with him towards culvert. When she refuted, he caught hold her hands, forcibly took her, removed her cloths and made her naked. He slammed her on the ground. Thereafter, he himself removed his cloths completely and when he tried to commit rape, she cried for help. After hearing her cry, Jagdish Singh (PW6) rushed at the place of occurrence. On seeing him, accused-respondent took her cloths and run towards culvert. Prosecutrix (PW1) narrated the whole incident to Jagdish Singh (PW6) and returned to her home, narrated the incident to her mother Komal Bai (PW4), father Parasram (PW2) and brother Laxmi Narayan (PW7). Thereafter, prosecutrix (PW1) and her father Parasram (PW2), narrated the incident to Devilal (PW3), who is uncle of the prosecutrix. At that time, there was dark and therefore, matter was reported on the next day at 11:15 a.m., on 30.3.2000. FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1 at Police Station Ahmadpur vide Crime No. 54/2000. She was medically examined vide Ex.P-7 and after investigation charge sheet has been filed before Judicial Magistrate and matter was committed to the learned Sessions Court and charge under sections 376(2)(f) read with section 511 of IPC and section 3(2)(f) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been framed against accused-respondent Pappu @ Shirpal Singh. The respondents denied the guilt and pleaded for trial. Statements of prosecutrix (PW1), father of prosecutrix Parasram (PW2), Devilal (PW3), mother of prosecutrix Komal Bai (PW4), C.M. Dwivedi (PW5), Jagdish Singh Solanki (PW6), brother of prosecutrix Laxmi Narayan (PW7), Mishri Lal (PW8), B.S. Kang (PW9) and Dr. Smt. Rita Yadu (PW10) were recorded and proved Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 and Ex.D/1. 3. Statements of prosecutrix (PW1), father of prosecutrix Parasram (PW2), Devilal (PW3), mother of prosecutrix Komal Bai (PW4), C.M. Dwivedi (PW5), Jagdish Singh Solanki (PW6), brother of prosecutrix Laxmi Narayan (PW7), Mishri Lal (PW8), B.S. Kang (PW9) and Dr. Smt. Rita Yadu (PW10) were recorded and proved Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 and Ex.D/1. 3. Learned trial Court after appreciating the statements of prosecutrix (PW1), Parasram (PW2), Devilal (PW3), Komal Bai (PW4), Jagdish Singh (PW6) and Laxmi Narayan (PW7) came to the conclusion that it is a case of false implication. There was inimical terms between accused-respondent and father of the prosecutrix, who was in the same agricultural field where prosecutrix was grazing her she-goat, but he could not reach at the place of occurrence. There is a Police Station at the distance of 2-3 kms from Village Rawatkheda and number of transportation and other facilities are available, but in spite of that, FIR was lodged on the next day. 4. Parasram (PW2), in his cross-examination has very categorically stated that there are lot of traffic between Rawatkheda and Ahmadpur. Komal Bai (PW4) has also supported the aforesaid fact. The delay has not been properly explained. It is also one of the reason in acquitting the accused-respondent. 5. As per medical report (Ex.P-7), only external body of prosecutrix (PW1) was examined. As per report, external injuries like abrasions were given, which are simple in nature. Relevant part of her medical report (Ex.P-7) reads as under : “Examined Mamta d/o Parasram, Aged 13 years – r/o Rawat Kheda. Brought by P.C. Premsingh No.294, P.S. Ahmedpur. Date and time of exam-30.3.2000 at 3.05 p.m. I/M Scar mark over the forehead in the middle Secondary sex characters are developing, Abrasion over the back right side 5 cm x 1 cm at the level of T12. Abrasion over the back in the middle over b1 1 cm x 5 cm. Abrasion multiple over the back right side 5-6 in number 5 x 1 cm linear. Abrasions over the back at the level of 25 1 cm x 5 cm in the middle. Local exam – No injuries are seen over private parts. Opinion – All injuries simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. Duration 12 to 24 hours.” 6. Prosecutrix (PW1), in her cross-examination has categorically admitted that there is omission in Police statement Ex.D-1. There is omission regarding caste also. Local exam – No injuries are seen over private parts. Opinion – All injuries simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. Duration 12 to 24 hours.” 6. Prosecutrix (PW1), in her cross-examination has categorically admitted that there is omission in Police statement Ex.D-1. There is omission regarding caste also. The distance of Police Station Ahmadpur is just 2-3 km from her Village Rawatkheda and number of times, her father visited Ahmadpur in evening and returned from Ahmadpur within one and half hours. As per para 10, of her deposition, she has stated that she was grazing she-goat at the field of Mangilal. Near to Mangilal agricultural field, her father Parasram (PW2) was cutting wheat and from where he can see her daughter and her father also seen her from the aforesaid place. At the time of occurrence, number of labourers were working in the agricultural field. She also admitted that number of times her father Mangilal was warned by the accused and gave an ultimatum not to come to his agricultural field for grazing she-goat. It is also admitted by her that due to grazing of she-goat, they caused loss to the crop of the accused party was damaged. She also admitted that Mangilal also warned to her father. In para 13, she admitted that at the time of occurrence, she was wearing bangles and when accused caught hold her hands at that time, some bangles were broken and she could have sustained some injuries on her hands. But, there is omission in her police case diary statement Ex.D/1 nor the same is medically corroborated. She also stated that incident was narrated to Sarpanch and Patel, but there is omission in this regard. 7. Parasram (PW2), father of the prosecutrix also admitted that the distance between Rawatkheda to Ahmadpur is 2-3 kms and number of transportation facilities are available. He also admitted that at the time of occurrence, he was working in the agricultural field which is very nearer to the place of occurrence. Independent witness, Jagdish Singh (PW6) has not supported the case of prosecution and has been declared hostile. In the FIR as well as police case diary statement, no allegation has been made, but Parasram (PW2) in para 10 of his crossexamination has made allegation of rape against the accused-respondent. Similar is the statement of Devilal (PW3). 8. Independent witness, Jagdish Singh (PW6) has not supported the case of prosecution and has been declared hostile. In the FIR as well as police case diary statement, no allegation has been made, but Parasram (PW2) in para 10 of his crossexamination has made allegation of rape against the accused-respondent. Similar is the statement of Devilal (PW3). 8. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State, submitted that prosecutrix has proved her case beyond any reasonable doubt. The acquittal of respondent is not based on material evidence on record. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution and prays that the impugned judgment be set aside and respondent be convicted. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, who is appearing for respondent has supported the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and submitted that the statement of prosecutrix has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. There is no medical examination of internal part of the body of the prosecutrix, nor there is any report available in the original record and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. The trial Court came to the conclusion that statement of prosecutrix (PW1), is not reliable. She has falsely implicated them due to enmity with the respondent. The sexual assault on prosecutrix (PW1) has not been established by the medical report. The learned trial Court has considered material omissions and contradictions and acquitted the respondent. The learned trial Court has rightly drawn an adverse inference against prosecutrix (PW1). The finding of acquittal is based on proper appreciation of material evidence on record. No case is made out in absence of any material to differ with the aforesaid finding or take a different view in the matter. 12. It is well settled that mere statement of the prosecutrix herself is enough to record a conviction when her evidence is read in its totality and found to be worth reliance. Here in the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable, because there are material contradictions and omissions which have been considered by the learned trial Court while acquitting the respondent. 13. The evidence of the prosecutrix is not consistent on the aspect of attempt to commit rape and there are lot of contradictions which go to the root of the matter. 13. The evidence of the prosecutrix is not consistent on the aspect of attempt to commit rape and there are lot of contradictions which go to the root of the matter. We feel that her evidence is full with discrepancies, contradictions and improper versions which brought us to irretrievable conclusion that evidence of prosecutrix which cannot be a basis to convict the accused-respondent. The learned trial Court has very meticulously appreciated the evidence and acquitted the respondent by the impugned judgment. 14. On due consideration, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the trial Court are based on appreciation of material evidence on record. There is no reason to take a different view in the matter. For these reasons, the appeal filed by the respondent-State has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.