Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishnapal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 May, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13532
1 CRA-2770-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 19 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2770 of 2023
KRISHNAPAL SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Kumar Meena - advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Virendra Khadav - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on : 23.04.2025
Pronounced on : 19.05.2025
ORDER
This criminal appeal is preferred under section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short referred to as 'The Act, 1989') by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.12.2022, passed by Special Sessions Judge, District Ratlam in S.T. No.15/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366, 376(2)(n) and 342 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 10 years, 10 years and 01 year R.I with fine of Rs.1,000/- under each sections and usual default stipulations.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 12.11.2021 the complainant lodged a complaint at police station Manak Chowk, District- Ratlam by submitting that on 12.11.2021 early morning @ 2.30 am when she went out of her house to answer Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 20-05-2025 16:11:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13532 2 CRA-2770-2023 nature's call one person came by covering his face with mask abducted the prosecutrix forcefully, took to the garden nearby to Karmadi petrol pump in a eicher vehicle, thereafter he removed his mask. When the accused removed his mask the prosecutrix identified him as present appellant Krishnapal Rathore, residence of Pipalkunt. Thereafter he confined her in the cabin of the vehicle and committed rape with her repeatedly for several times and later on he alighted her from the vehicle so also threatened to kill her if she discloses the incident to some one. Prosecutrix returned to her house, informed her mother about the incident and thereafter they lodged complaint against the appellant, on the basis of which FIR was registered against the appellant for offence under Sections 366, 342, 376(2) (n), 506 of IPC, read with Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 32)(v) of 'The Act, 1989'.
3. The police party, following due procedure, recorded the statements of the witnesses, seized the articles, prepared the requisite documents, sent the prosecutrix for medical examination. Appellant was arrested and a case was registered against him. After necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the trial Court.
4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined total 07 witnesses namely Ajay Sharma (PW-1), Amit Bhatt (PW-2), Dr. Sunita (PW-3), Leelabai (PW-4), Prosecutrix (PW-5), Nisha Choubey (P.W.6), Dilip Rajoriya (P.W.7). No witness has been examined in support of the defence. The appellant abjured his guilt and he took a plea that he is innocent.
5. The learned trial Court having relied upon the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and other documents like FIR and scholar register, convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) and 342 of IPC, 1860 and discharged from the offence under 3(1)(w)(i), 32)(v) 'The Act, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 20-05-2025 16:11:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13532 3 CRA-2770-2023 1989' as the same was not proved.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, being crestfallen by the aforesaid findings of the Trial Court, submitted that the allegations that appellant has committed rape upon the prosecutrix repeatedly against her will is not found to be proved, since as per the statement of Dr. Sunita (P.W3) neither there were marks of internal injury nor any sign of physical violence and the FSL report was found to be inconclusive and uncertain. The victim has also not lodged the complaint immediately and it has been lodged at 3.00 pm i.e. after 12 hours of the incident and the delay has not been properly explained. The prosecutrix is a major lady, both the appellant and prosecutrix were well acquainted with each other. The prosecutrix (P.W5) has admitted in para-9 of her cross-examination that she had taken a colour photograph with the appellant and appellant's name was written on her palm and further admitted in para 11 of the cross examination that she lodged the present complaint under the pressure of someone. She is a consenting party and their relationship was consensual in nature. There are material omission and contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix therefore the learned trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant by relying upon the statement of the prosecutrix.
7. Alternatively, counsel for the appellant has further argued on the point of sentence also and prays that since the appellant has already suffered jail sentence for more than 3 years and 5 months out of the 10 years, hence the jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the appellant deserves some leniency as he has already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2021 i.e. for a period of 03 years. It is further submitted that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted for the aforesaid offence.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 20-05-2025 16:11:59NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13532 4 CRA-2770-2023
8. Learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant by sentencing him appropriately. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.
10. In view of the evidence available on record and the contentions advanced by counsel for both parties, this Court has to decide the question as to whether the findings of learned trial Court regarding conviction under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) and 342 of IPC, 1860 are correct in the eyes of law and facts or not?
11. With regard to the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court had ignored the material omissions and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and wrongly convicted the appellant, on perusal of record it is evident that prosecutrix is the sole witnesses of the incident and other witnesses are only hearsay witnesses. The prosecutrix has admitted in the examination in chief that appellant had forceful physical relationship with her repeatedly due to which she started bleeding, this fact has been corroborated with the statement of Dr.Sunita (P.W.3). Thereafter, she has also admitted in her cross examination that she is well acquainted with the appellant prior to the incident and in colour photographs she was found kissing the appellant, this fact has already been mentioned by the prosecutrix in her complaint. However these pictures might have been taken prior to the incident and on the basis of the same the conduct of the prosecutrix cannot be doubted on the basis of material omissions and contradictions in her statement.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 20-05-2025 16:11:59NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13532 5 CRA-2770-2023
12. So far as the submissions regarding internal and external injury on the body of the prosecutrix is concerned, certainly, as per medical report (Ex.P/3), no internal and external injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix. Dr. Sunita, (PW-3) has also not stated anything in this regard. On that basis, learned counsel also challenged the findings of conviction. On this aspect, it is well settled that in the absence of external injury on the person of prosecutrix, it cannot be concluded that the incident had taken place with consent of prosecutrix. It rests upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of B.C. Deva @ Dyava vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 12 SCC 122, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that absence of injury on the person of the victim of rape does not lead to an inference that the accused did not commit forcible sexual intercourse. It has further been held that even in the absence of external injury, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix that she was subjected to rape cannot be ignored.
13. In this regard, Hon'ble the apex court in the case of Rafiq vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1981 SC 559] has already observed as under:
"5. The facts and circumstances often vary from case to case, the crime situation and the myriad psychic factors, social conditions and people's life-styles may fluctuate, and so, rules of prudence relevant in one fact- situation may be inept in another. We cannot accept the argument that regardless of the specific circumstances of a crime and criminal milieu, some strands of probative reasoning which appealed to a Bench in one reported decision must mechanically be extended to other cases.
Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of a prosecutrix is not a matter of law, but a guidance of prudence under given circumstance. Indeed, from place to place, from age to age, from varying life-style and behavioural complexes, inferences from a given set of facts, oral and circumstantial, may have to be drawn not with Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 20-05-2025 16:11:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13532 6 CRA-2770-2023 dead uniformity but realistic diversity lest rigidity in the shape of rule of law in this area be introduced through a new type of presidential tyranny. The same observation holds good regarding the presence or absence of injuries on the person of the aggressor or the aggressed."
14. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, it can be manifested that the injuries on the person of the prosecutrix cannot be treated as sine qua non for setting up the offence of rape, because in order to establish the offence of rape such injuries on the person of prosecutrix are not an indispensable requirement. Moreover, in this case, Dr. Sunita has opined in her report that the Hymen got ruptured and there is transverse tear of 2.5 cm x 1 cm and bleeding from the tear was found on the person of the prosecutrix. Hence, the contentions raised by learned counsel in this regard, is found futile.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has adverted to some discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, but during whole arguments, he is not able to point out any discrepancies or contradictions which hit the root of the case. On this aspect, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the celebrated judgment rendered in Bharwada Bhognibai Hirjibai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753 is worth to refer here. In this case Hon'ble Apex Court has viewed as under :-
"Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses."
16. Here, prosecutrix is a rustic lady and victim of heinous offence, hence it is not expected that during the Court statement, she possesses the photographic memory and to recall the details of the incident exactly in the same manner. Hence, only on the trivial contradictions and omissions, the statement of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 20-05-2025 16:11:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13532 7 CRA-2770-2023 prosecutrix cannot be thrown away.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant has also demurred that only on the basis of statement of major prosecutrix, a person cannot be convicted for such a heinous offence for which minimum sentence of seven years has been provided. On this aspect, this Court is bound to recall the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 wherein it is held as under :-
"8..........The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self- respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not over-look. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl of a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 20-05-2025 16:11:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13532 8 CRA-2770-2023 of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be over- looked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another persons's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable."
18. In this regard, Hon'ble Justice Krishna Iyer, speaking for the Bench in Rafiq Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1980) 4 SCC 262 eloquently observed as follows :-
"Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony cf a prosecutrix is not a matter of law, but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. Indeed, from place to place, from age to age, from varying life-styles and behavioural complexes, inferences from a given set of facts, oral and circumstantial, may have to be drawn not with dead uniformity but realistic diversity lest rigidity in the shape of rule of law in this area be introduced through a new type of precedential tyranny. The same observation holds good regarding the presence or absence of injuries on the person of the aggressor or the aggressed."Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 20-05-2025 16:11:59
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13532 9 CRA-2770-2023
19. Further in the case, Sham Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 34, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-
"........It must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults."
20. In this regard, the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhoora Yadav @ Rahul And Another vs State Of U.P. wherein it has been held that:
17. No doubt a victim of rape suffers a shock and horror due to the incident. But the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, as far as the evidence of P.W.1 Gorey Lal, father of the victim, is concerned, has laid down as under:-
"In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.
Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 20-05-2025 16:11:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13532 10 CRA-2770-2023 crudible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility. Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statements made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited."
21. Learned counsel for the appellant has expostulated that all witnesses are related and interested witnesses, thus, on the basis of their testimonies, the appellants can not be convicted. Certainly, the witnesses are related to each other. On this aspect in the case of "Dilip Singh vs. State of Punjab" reported as AIR 1953 SC 364, the Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 26 as under:
"26. ......... Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause' for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth."
22. With regard to one day delay in filing the FIR, it is to be noted that the incident occurred at 2.00 am in the early morning of 12.11.2021 and FIR has been lodged on 15.00 hrs of 12.11.2021 i.e. after 12 hours of the alleged incident. The Courts cannot over-look the fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 20-05-2025 16:11:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13532 11 CRA-2770-2023 offence is generally lodged. In this regard the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Tara Singh And Others vs The State Of Punjab AIR 1991 SC 63 is relevant to refer here wherein it has been held as under:
4. It is well-settled that the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are we cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go to the police station for giving the" report. Of course the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts have pointed out that in cases arising out of acute factions there is a tendency to implicate persons belonging to the opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the danger of convicting such innocent persons the courts are cautioned to scrutinise the evidence of such interested witnesses with greater care and caution and separate grain from the chaff after subjecting the evidence to a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR also will have to be scrutinised carefully. However, unless there are indications of fabrication, the court cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the FIR and later substantiated by the evidence merely on the ground of delay. These are all matters for appreciation and much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
On substratum of the aforesaid analysis in entirety, this Court is of the view that the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground for rejection of the prosecution version.
23. Now, again coming to the question of credence upon prosecutrix having gone through the whole record in entirety, it is apparent that the statement of prosecutrix is absolutely worth relying. She had no reason to defame herself by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 20-05-2025 16:11:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13532 12 CRA-2770-2023 falsely implicating the present appellant. Rape as a crime is heinous and it is severe, when the woman is raped by a person whom she trusted or whom she had fiduciary relationship (hereinafter 'acquaintance rape'). As such, the prosecution case against the appellant has been proved beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgment of learned trial Court after well appreciation of evidence with regard to the conviction of appellant under Section 376 is found infallible and immaculate.
24. Now, turning to the part of sentence, in this case, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 342 of IPC and sentenced him for 10 years, 10 years and 1 year R.I alongwith fine and usual default stipulation. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that under Sub-Section (1) of Section 376 of IPC, minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment is prescribed for ten years along with fine. Actually as per minimum provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 376 (1) of IPC the sentence for committing rape is provided as under :-
"376 Punishment of Rape:
(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
25. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, now it is also pertinent to mention that there is no proviso with regard to reduce the minimum sentence and the trial Court has to impose a minimum sentence of 10 years R.I. of either description. Learned trial Court has imposed 10 years R.I for Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 20-05-2025 16:11:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13532 13 CRA-2770-2023 the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. There is no adequate reason available on record for which this Court needs to interfere with the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court.
26. Accordingly, appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed and the impugned order is hereby affirmed.
27. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for information and necessary action.
Certified copy as per rule.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE sumathi Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 20-05-2025 16:11:59