Madhya Pradesh High Court
Asha Bai Parodi vs Jugraj Patel on 15 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2297/17
(Asha Bai Parochi Vs. State of M.P.)
Jabalpur, Dated 15.01.2018
Mr. R.S. Sidiqui, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. P.K. Naveriya, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent No.2.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant herein under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being an appeal under Section 14-A of the Act against the order dated 19.4.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Narsinghpur, rejecting the complaint of the appellant on 30.1.2017.
The brief facts essential to appreciate the instant appeal are as under. The appellant filed a private complaint against the respondent No.1 Jugraj Patel alleging that he had committed offences against her under Section 376, 506 of I.P.C. and U/s.3(2)(v), 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on 30.1.2017. The charge against the respondent No.1 is that when the prosecutrix was sitting in front of her house on 10.5.2015, the respondent No.1 is stated to have come there and engaged the prosecutrix in a conversation and in the course of that, the prosecutrix is stated to have informed the respondent No.1 that she is searching for a job as a labourer and if he has any work she is prepared to do the same . The respondent No.1 is stated to have informed her that he is having some agricultural work at his home and gave her his address. The complainant went to the house of respondent No.1 on 25.5.2015 at 5.00 p.m. and met the respondent No.1 and requested him to provide her with some work.
The respondent No.1 is stated to have told the prosecutrix that presently he has no work for her and that she can come back later. Thereafter, the prosecutrix complained that when she was returning and had reached near a Mango tree in a sugarcane field at that point of time the respondent No.1 is stated to have come from behind, dragged her inside the sugarcane field and committed rape with her. She raised an alarm however, nobody came for her help. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 is stated to have gone away from the scene of occurrence after threatening her with dire consequences if she informed anyone.
The prosecutrix states that she was terrified by the threat held out by the respondent No.1 and therefore she did nothing and came back to her house at Kareli. However, on the same day i.e. on 25.5.2015 itself she is stated have lodged a report at the Harijan Thana at Narsinghpur against the respondent No.1. The offence against the respondent No.1 was registered under the above mentioned provisions as Crime No.8/2015 and the prosecutrix was got medically examined. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghpur on 26.5.2015 in which she has reiterated her allegation against the respondent No.1 of having committed rape on her. However, that not withstanding , the prosecutrix alleges that the Harijan Thana did nothing and neither arrested the accused nor filed the challan against him till date.
The prosecutrix further states that as the Harijan Thana was not taking any action in the matter, she submitted a complaint to the Inspector General of Police and the Superintendent of Police, Harijan Police Station, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur and higher authorities but even thereafter when no challan was filed against the respondent No.1, the prosecutrix filed a writ petition being W.P. No.1048/2016. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 4.3.2016 which is at page 18 of this petition, giving the petitioner liberty to file a representation to the Superintende nt of Police, Distt. Narsingpur which shall be considered and disposed of by the authorities within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such representation by a speaking order. Thereafter, the prosecutrix preferred a complaint on 30.1.2017 against the respondent No.1. The learned Court below dismissed the complaint case by the impug ned order relying upon a D.N.A. report exonerating the respondent No.1 dated 23.12.2015.
The main grouse of the prosecutrix is that there was a delay of almost three months in sending the blood sample of the respondent No.1 for analysis to the FSL Laboratory at Sagar, as is reflected from the first part of the DNA report dated 23.12.2015, which reflects that the DNA sample was sent along with the covering letter dated 18.8.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.1 is an influe ntial person and the blood sample that was sent is suspected to be of another person so that there would be a mis-match with regard to the DNA samples being the vaginal slide and pubic hair and the under- garments of the prosecutrix.
Looking at the fact that the prosecutrix has been consistent in her allegation and has pursued the respondent No.1 at great length before the Police, before the High Court and thereafter before the Court of the learned Special Judge, (Atrocities) and looking at the strata of the society from which the prosecutrix comes, in the interest of justice this Court feels that it would be appropriate to have a second blood sample of the respondent No.1 sent for D.N.A . verification.
Under the circumstances, it is directed that the respondent No.1 and the appellant shall appear before the Court of learned Special Judge with a copy of this order on 29.1.2018 . Thereafter, the learned Special Judge is requested to have a blood sample of the respondent No.1 drawn in the presence of the learned Court below sealed by the Court and thereafter sent to the FSL at Sagar along with a copy of the DNA report dated 23.12.2015 to conduct a fresh test on the blood of the respondent No.1 and submit its report to the learned Special Judge at the earliest. The learned Special Judge is requested that upon receiving the report of the DNA test, the same shall be transmitted to this Court in a sealed envelope in Criminal Appeal No.2297/2017 (Asha Bai Parochi Vs. Jugraj Patel and another).
List this case on 26.3.2018 .
C.C. as per rules.
(Atul Sreedharan)
a Judge
Digitally signed by
ASHISH DATTA
Date: 2018.01.16
12:41:51 +05'30'