Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghunandan vs The State Of M.P. on 19 September, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
Bench: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
Cr.Appeal No.1035/1999
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 20th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1035 of 1999
BETWEEN:-
RAGHUNANDAN S/O RAMCHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O
TEH. BERCHA, DISTT.SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH)
AND
STATE OF M.P. THRU. PS.A.J.K. SHAJAPUR, DISTT SHAJAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJESH JOSHI)
This appeal coming on for judgment this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J., Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) [in short Cr.P.C.] being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.08.1999, passed by the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Shajapur in S.C. No.21/99, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 2 Cr.Appeal No.1035/1999 376 of Indian Panel Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo RI for 7 years.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:
(i) On 03.07.1999 at about 14:00 PM, when prosecutrix, who is a member of SC/ST community, went towards forest near his village Bercha for grazing her cattle, appellant came there and caught hold of her and took her near 'Khaal' pressing her mouth and thereafter committed rape upon her. Prosecutrix returned to her house, narrated the incident to her husband and thereafter, on the same day made a written complaint (Ex.P-1) to the police, on the basis of which at about 17:15 PM, FIR (Ex.P-3) was registered at 'zero' at P.S. Bercha, Distt.
Shajapur, against the appellant for the offence punishabl u/S 376 of IPC. She was sent vide letter (Ex.P-4) to Civil Hospital, Shajapur for medical examination, where Dr. R.V. Jafri medically examined her and finding no internal or external injury on her body prepared MLC report (Ex.P-2). She preserved and prepared prosecutrix's vaginal swab slides, sealed the same alongwith her clothes and handed over all the articles to the police official, who brought her to the hospital.
(ii) As the matter relates to SC/ST Act, therefore, case was transferred to Police Station A.J.K., Shajapur, where on the basis of FIR dated 03.07.1999 (Ex.P-3), on 05.04.1999 at about 14:30 PM, FIR 3 Cr.Appeal No.1035/1999 (Ex.P-11) bearing crime No.18/99 was registered at Police Station AJK, Shajapur. Dy. S.P., S.S. Sisodiya recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses, arrested the appellant as per arrest memo (Ex.P-8) and sent him for medical examination. After completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Distt. Shajapur.
3. Learned trial Court considering the material prima-facie available on record framed the charges u/S 376 of IPC and Section 3(1)
(ii) of SC/ ST Act against the appellant, who abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.
4. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the appellant from the offence punishable u/S 3(1)(ii) of SC/ ST Act, but convicted him for the offences punishable u/S 376 of IPC and sentenced him as stated in para 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellant has preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and discharging him from the aforesaid charges framed against him.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has committed legal error while appreciating the evidence available on record. Learned counsel referring an FIR (Ex.D-3), lodged 4 Cr.Appeal No.1035/1999 by the appellant prior to the prosecutrix's FIR (Ex.P-3), submits that on the date of incident prosecutrix was destroying his crops by her cattle and when he objected, she alongwith her brother-in-law assaulted the appellant, who is admittedly a disabled person. Appellant immediately went to police station and made complaint against them, on the basis of which FIR (Ex.D-3) was lodged at Police Station- Bercha, Shajapur for the offence punishable under Section 440, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Thereafter, as a counter blast of prosecutrix lodged false and fabricated FIR (Ex.P-3) against him. Medical evidence does not support the prosecution case and FSL report has not been produced on record intentionally. Thus, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be set aside and appellant may be acquitted from the charges framed against him.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that judgment so passed by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Therefore, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record.
5Cr.Appeal No.1035/1999
8. Prosecution has examined in all 6 prosecution witnesses including prosecutrix (PW-1), her husband (PW-2) and her brother-in- law (PW-3). Other material witnesses are Dr. R.V. Jafri (PW-4), who medically examined the prosecutrix, SI M.R. Khan, who lodged FIR on the basis of written complaint made by the prosecutrix and Dy. S. P. , S.S. Sisodiya, who investigated the case.
9. Prosecutrix (PW-1) although in her examination-in-chief deposed that on the date of incident, when she went towards forest for grazing her cattle near nala, appellant all of sudden came there, caught hold of her and forcefully committed rape upon her, but her statements about the incident are inconsistent with her own written complaint (Ex.P-1) and FIR (Ex.P-3). She in her written complaint (Ex.P-1) mentioned that appellant caught hold of her and thereafter took her towards khal and thereafter, he committed rape upon her, but in her statement recorded during trial she in para 11 specifically denied the fact that appellant took her to some other place. She stated that appellant committed rape upon her at the same place, where he had caught hold of her.
10. Prosecutrix (PW-1) in para 13 of her cross-examination admitted that appellant being a disable person, is unable to stand. She in her written complaint as well as in her statements stated that incident took place at about 02:00 PM., while it has specifically been suggested on 6 Cr.Appeal No.1035/1999 behalf of the appellant that prosecutrix and her brother-in-law assaulted appellant at about 12.00 Noon for which FIR (Ex.D-3) was lodged at about 15:00 PM.
11. Prosecutrix's husband Dinesh (PW-2) deposed that he knew about the incident at about 15:00 -16:00 PM, while prosecutrix's brother-in-law Ramesh (PW-13) deposed that incident took place at about 12:00 noon. In view of the aforesaid inconsistencies, defense taken by the appellant that FIR (Ex.P-3), was lodged as a counterblast to his FIR (Ex.D-3), can not be ruled out. Therefore, keeping in mind the fact that the appellant is a disabled person, without any corroborative evidence, only on the basis of prosecutrix's inconsistent statements, it is not safe to convict the appellant. Medical evidence does not support the prosecution case as Dr. R.V. Jafri (PW-2) specifically deposed that during medical examination, she had not found any external or internal injury on the body of the prosecutrix. Proseuction has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has committed error in holding the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under 376 of IPC.
12. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and facts on record, and is liable to be set aside. Hence, conviction of the appellant cannot 7 Cr.Appeal No.1035/1999 be upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:
(i) Criminal Appeal No.1035/1999 filed by the appellant -
Raghunandan is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.1999, passed in S.C.No.21/99 by which appellant has been convicted under 376 of IPC and sentenced him as stated in para 1 of the judgment is hereby set aside.
(iii) Appellant be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.
(iv) Fine amount(if any) deposited by the appellant be refunded to them.
The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court record forthwith alongwith the copy of this judgment.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge vibha/-
VIBHA PACHORI 2022.09.22 11:40:39 +05'30'