Madhya Pradesh High Court
Premnarayan And Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170
1 CRA-1279-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1279 of 2012
PREMNARAYAN AND ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned GA for the respondent/State.
Reserved on 17.04.2025
Delivered on 28.04.2025.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh This appeal under section 374 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is preferred being aggrieved by the conviction under section 376 and 506 of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation of 2 years simple imprisonment and 2 years RI and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation of 2 months simple imprisonment vide judgment dated 01.10.2012 in Sessions Case No.257/2011 by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora). Substantive sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 2 CRA-1279-2012
2. Facts in brief are that victim (PW/5) is the daughter of the appellant. The victim (PW/5) was aged 13-14 years at the time of incident. Her mother died 5-6 years prior to the incident and her elder sister got married. Her brother was residing with elder brother of the father and victim (PW/5) was residing with the appellant.
3. One day her uncle came to the house in intoxicated condition and committed penetrative sexual assault with the victim (PW/5). The victim cried but no one was available to save the child. The uncle of the victim threatened to kill if the incident is divulged to any one.
4. Next day in the morning her uncle went for work. After 3-4 days her father/appellant also committed penetrative sexual assault with the victim (PW/5). The present appellant repeated the incident at 3-4 occasions and he also threatened the victim with dire consequences if the incident is divulged to any one. When PW/5 found no recourse, then she requested to neighbour to call her brother-in-law and save her. Her brother-in-law (PW/6) came to the village of victim (PW/5) and took her to his home. She narrated the incident to her elder sister (PW/7). The present appellant also came to the house of her brother-in-law and insisted to return PW/5. PW/6 objected and did not permit the victim to go with the appellant. Thereafter PW/6 took the victim to elder brother of appellant and victim (PW/5) narrated the whole incident to her aunt. It came to know that PW/5 has carried pregnancy. PW/5 lodged the report (Ex.P/2) at PS Khujner and a case under sections 376 and 506 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 3 CRA-1279-2012 the IPC was registered against the appellant and his younger brother as crime no.156/2011 on 10.07.2011. The victim (PW/5) was medically examined and samples taken from the victim were handed over for further examination and DNA finger print examination was also conducted and report Ex.P/25 opined that present appellant is the father of fetal bones collected from the victim (PW/5). After completing investigation final report was submitted against the present appellant keeping the investigation pending against the uncle of the victim.
5. A criminal case no.911/2011 was registered in the Court of CJM, Rajgarh and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) vide order dated 01.10.2011.
6. Appellant/accused abjured guilt regarding charges under sections 376 & 506 of the IPC pleading innocence and claimed for trial.
7. To bring home guilt, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses including Ganpatlal (PW/1), Patwari of Halka No.86 Bhagirath Verma as PW/2, Harinarayan as PW/3, brother of the appellant as PW/4, victim as PW/5, brother-in-law of the victim as PW/6, sister of the victim as PW/7, younger brother of the appellant as PW/8, medical officer Dr.Smt.Sheila Singh as PW/9, Sub Inspector S.S.Parihar as PW/10, Head Constable Krishna Kumar as PW/11, Constable No.8 Narayansingh as PW/12, Constable No.59 Haripuri as PW/13, A.S.I-RR Khapre as PW/14, Headmaster of the school where the victim was studying as PW/15, medical officer Dr.Pradeep Kumar as Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 4 CRA-1279-2012 PW/16, medical officer Dr.Smt.R.Yadu as PW/17 and medical officer Dr.A.K Sharma as PW/18.
8. In examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C appellants/accused either denied or pleaded innocence regarding the facts and circumstances appeared against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution except the fact that victim is his daughter. He took the plea of false implication on the ground that his elder daughter (PW/7) and his son-in-law (PW/6) and his brothers have rivalry due to the house in which he resides and they all used his daughter PW/5 to falsely implicate in this case. He examined no witness in his defence.
9. Appreciating the evidence, trial court convicted and awarded sentence as per para-1 of the judgment.
10. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that first information report has been lodged with delay. The age of the victim has been wrongly assessed by the trial court. The victim (PW/5) was more than 18 years as menstrual cycle was well developed. Even after the incident she was living with appellant. It might be possible that it was consensual relationship. The fetus developed was 18-22 weeks i.e. 4-5 months whereas the incident was stated to be of two and half months prior to the report. The developed fetus may be of uncle of the victim (PW/5). There is no eye witness. The medical report is not trustworthy. The victim (PW/5) was a married woman. The fetus may be of her husband. The prosecution story is totally concocted. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 5 CRA-1279-2012 conviction is based on irrelevant consideration. The prosecution did not support truthfullness of prosecution version that how could the incident may happen. No explanation is advanced for the delay of FIR.
11. Heard.
12. State has supported the conviction as well as the sentence submitting that there is no reason to disbelieve the victim (PW/5) and the offence has been further proved by the scientific evidence in the form of DNA finger print report Ex.P/25. The nature of the offence is not only against the victim (PW/5) but also shock the collective conscience of the society, hence interference in the sentence is also not required.
13. Perused the record.
14. Trial court has recorded the finding in para-45 & 46 of the judgment that prosecutrix (PW/5) did not disclose the incident due to threat of life extended by the appellant/accused but when she was ravished repeatedly then she disclosed the incident to her neighbourhood aunt who intimated her brother-in-law. Trial court found explanation plausible and the testimony of victim (PW/5) as trustworthy. The trial court found assurance of the statement of the prosecutrix from the DNA finger print report Ex.P/25.
15. First of all we are dealing with the objection raised regarding the probative value of DNA finger print report Ex.P/25 and the credibility of the victim on the strength of Suresh Devidas Malche Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 6 CRA-1279-2012 vs. State of Mahasrashtra - 2023 Latest Case Law 2479 Bom. and Y vs. State of Maharashtra - 2024 BHC-NAG-14269.
16. In Suresh (supra) para-6 to 8 is referred which is being reproduced as below:
6. It is to be noted that the prosecution has heavily relied on DNA report Exhibit-41 and the opinion that was given in respect of the DNA test of the samples taken of the victim, child and the accused; as per Exhibit-41, is that the accused and the victim are concluded to be the biological parents of the child. In the impugned judgment also, the learned Trial Judge has heavily relied on the DNA report. As regards the DNA report is concerned, in Mukesh and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others [(2017) 6 SCC 1] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborated the procedure to be adopted for selecting the samples as well as the precautions, which are required to be taken in conducting the DNA test. It has been considered that DNA is the abbreviation of Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid and it has been observed in paragraph Nos.221 to 228 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as to how the DNA can be encrypted. It is observed that it is the basic genetic material in all human body cells. It is not contained in red blood corpuscles. It is, however, present in white corpuscles. It carries the genetic code. DNA structure determines human character, behaviour and body characteristics. DNA profiles are encrypted sets of numbers that reflect a person's DNA makeup which, in forensics, is used to identify human beings. DNA is a complex molecule. It has a double helix structure which can be compared with a twisted rope 'ladder'. Further, the provisions of Section 53-A sub-section (2) and 164-A sub-section (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were noted and, therefore, in this case also, it was expected from the prosecution to prove that the samples were taken properly and all the other necessary formalities have been adhered to. While considering the law on DNA test, we will have to take a note of the decision in Nandalal Wasudeo Badwaik Vs. Late Nandlal Badwaik, [(2014) 2 SCC 576]. In that case, the Court had directed DNA test and the DNA result showed that the appellant was not a biological father of the child. Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which raises a presumption, was also considered. Here, there is no question of Section 112 presumption of the Evidence Act, because onus cannot be shifted on the accused to prove non access, but then the importance was given to the scientific test. However, further decision that can be considered is Pattu Ranjan Vs. State of Tamil Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 7 CRA-1279-2012 Nandu, [2019 (4) SCC 771], wherein it has been observed that :-
"One cannot lose sight of the fact that DNA evidence is also in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged in Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Undoubtedly, an expert giving evidence before the Court plays a crucial role, especially since the entire purpose and object of opinion evidence is to aid the Court in forming its opinion on questions concerning foreign law, science, art, etc., on which the Court might not have the technical expertise to form an opinion on its own. In criminal cases, such questions may pertain to aspects such as ballistics, fingerprint matching, handwriting comparison, and even DNA testing or superimposition techniques, as seen in the instant case."
7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2023 (2) SCC 353)], highlighted the need to ensure quality testing and lesser possibility of tampering with the evidence. No doubt, the DNA testing and the report is based on a well developed science and it can lead of a concluded evidence, still it depends upon the extracting of samples, its preservation and ruling out the possibility of tampering. While considering DNA report from the series of the decisions, the legal position for DNA profiling report and its probative value are concerned, it is emerging that the prosecution is duty bound to prove all the steps which were taken by the investigating agency right from collecting the blood samples, preservation etc. We may rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court in Kisan Lal @ Champa Yadav Vs. State of Chattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No.565 of 2022 decided on 22.02.2023, wherein the account of many decisions on the legal aspect of DNA tests and DNA report has been considered. Further, we may also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Premjibhai Bachubhai Khasiya Vs. State of Gujarat and Another [2009 Cri.L.J. 2888], wherein it has been held that :-
" Positive DNA report can be of great significance, where there is supporting evidence, depending of course on the strength and quality of that evidence, even if it is positive, it cannot conclusively fix the identity of the miscreant, but, if the report is negative, it would conclusively exonerate the accused from the involvement of charge. The science of DNA is at a developing stage and when the Random Occurrence Ratio is not available for Indian Society, it would be risky to act solely on a positive DNA report, because only if the DNA profile of the accused matches with the foetus, it cannot be considered as a conclusive proof of Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170
8 CRA-1279-2012 paternity. Contrarily, if it is solitary piece of evidence with negative result, it would conclusively exclude the possibility of involvement of the accused in the offence. The positive DNA report cannot be therefore accepted by the trial Court in isolation, i.e. as sole piece of evidence to record the conviction of accused under Sections 376, 366 of Indian Penal Code"
8. Further, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsingh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra, [(2005) 5 SCC 294], wherein it has been held that :-
" DNA evidence may have a great significance where there is supporting evidence, dependent, of course, on the strength of that evidence.
........in every case one has to put the DNA evidence in the context of the rest of the evidence and decide whether taken as a whole it does amount to a prima facie case."
17. On the strength of the above legal position, it is argued that in this case ocular evidence is not reliable and conviction cannot be based only on the DNA test report.
18. Perusal of testimony of Dr.Smt.Sheela Singh, medical officer (PW/9) discloses that examination of PW/5 was conducted on 11.07.2011 at 10.30 a.m and product of conception (fetus with placenta) was coming outside the uterus during the MLC and it was preserved for further examination along with salwar, petticoat, pubic hair, vaginal smear of the victim (PW/5) and were handed over to the concerned Constable after putting seal. The fetus was forwarded to State Forensic Science Laboratary, Sagar for DNA fingerprint report and vide Ex.P/18 blood samples of victim and accused were sought and thereafter they were collected by Dr.Pradeep Kumar (PW/6) on 08.11.2011 at district hospital, Rajgarh. Identification form of victim (PW/5) was prepared as Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 9 CRA-1279-2012 Ex.P/26 and identification form of appellant was prepared as Ex.P/27 and thereafter blood samples were forwarded to forensic science laboratary and DNA fingerprint unit report Ex.P/25 dated 31.01.2012 was prepared. According to Ex.P/25 appellant is the biological father of fetus bones. The record of Ex.P/6, P/9 to P/27 forms a complete chain of custody. The report Ex.P/25 is admissible under section 293 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 as it was prepared by Scientific Officer and Assistant Chemical Examiner, Govt. of M.P posted at DNA fingerprint unit, State Forensic Science Laboratary, Sagar.
19. Accordingly, objections regarding admissibility and probative value of DNA fingerprint unit report Ex.P/25 is not sustainable in this case because the testimony of Dr.Smt.Sheela Singh (PW/9) is available in the record who collected fetus from the victim (PW/5) and preserved for examination properly and Dr.Pradeep Kumar (PW/16) has collected the blood samples of the victim (PW/5) and appellant with identification forms and nothing has been elicited in cross examination that affect the course of procedure adopted in taking, collecting, preserving, sealing and handing over to the concerned authorities.
20. Now come to the testimony of the victim (PW/5). The victim (PW/5) has categorically stated the incident that appellant/accused committed penetrative sexual assault 3-4 times. The only suggestion is that she got pregnancy by one Govardhan Sharma but Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 10 CRA-1279-2012 the victim (PW/5) denied the suggestion in para-18 and nothing has been brought on record. It is suggested that there is a dispute between the appellant and his elder brother but there is no reason why PW/5 will support the elder brother of his father in comparison to biological father and will falsely implicate the biological father with whom she was residing and was dependent.
21. We will also refer to a few binding precedents as regards the nature and extent of proof required while dealing with an offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code.
(a) In Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana [AIR 1980 SC 1252], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that to seek substantial corroboration of the victim's evidence is to sacrifice common sense. The Supreme Court posed the question as to why a girl, of all persons in the world, hunt a stranger and foist a rape charge on him? The inherent bashfulness, the innocent naivete and the feminine tendency to conceal the outrage of masculine sexual aggression are factors which are relevant to improbabilise the hypothesis of false implication.
(b) In Rafiq v. State of U.P. [AIR 1981 SC 559], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus :
"6. ............. When rapists are reveling in their promiscuous pursuits and half of humankind-womankind- is protesting against its hapless lot, when no woman of honour will accuse another of rape since she sacrifices thereby what is dearest to her, we cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative testimony, even it taken as a whole, the case spoken to by the victim strikes a judicial mind as probable.Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 11 CRA-1279-2012 ..................
7. Hardly a sensitized judge who sees the conspectus of circumstances in its totality and rejects the testimony of a rape victim unless there are very strong circumstances militating against its veracity."
(c) In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [AIR 1983 SC 753], the Hon'ble Supreme Court enlisted as many as 10 factors to repel the possibility of false allegations of rape and held thus:
"11. In view of these factors the victims and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to books. And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. On principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed to be self inflicted) is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex-offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. And while corroboration in the form of eye- witness account of an independent witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence cannot be expected in sex offences, having regard to the very nature of the offence. ................................."
(d) In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Others [(1996) 2 SCC 384], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases involving sexual molestation, even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are of a fatal nature, be Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 12 CRA-1279-2012 allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 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. It was further held that 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.
(e) To the same effect is the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha Ram [supra], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"5. ......It is now well settled principle of law that conviction can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness..................................... Even minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case."
22. In the light of the above legal position, we find no reason to disbelieve the victim (PW/5) whose statement is natural and ground of delay has no relevance because in this case she was living alone in the house with the appellant and was dependent on him and no female member was in the house, therefore, the judgment of Y vs. State of Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 13 CRA-1279-2012 Maharashtra - 2024 BHC-NAG-14269 does not help the appellant in the facts of this case.
23. When the victim (PW/5) is found reliable then there is no reason to discard the DNA fingerprint report Ex.P/25. It further lends assurance to the testimony of PW/5. In the light of above discussion, we find the appellant/accused guilt of the offence under section 376 and 506 of the IPC and affirm the findings of the trial Court as recorded in para- 48 of the judgment.
24. What remains is an appropriate sentence. The learned Sessions Judge, after discussing the impact of the crime on the mind of the victim, impact on society and duty of appellant to protect tthe daughter imposed a sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/-, with a default clause for imprisonment for two more years.
25. As per law prevailing at the time of commission of offence, the punishment prescribed was rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 7 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also for fine. It could thus be seen that the learned Sessions Judge has imposed the maximum punishment prescribed by the statute.
26. Principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to culpability of each kind of criminal conduct has been very aptly elaborated by the apex court in the case of Lehna vs. State of Haryana - (2002) 3 SCC 76. It will be expedient to refer to the observations made by the apex court on this subject as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 14 CRA-1279-2012 "The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence; sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal expected in principle, and in spite of errant notions it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies; but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now a single grave infraction is thought to call for uniformly drastic measures. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought than to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But, in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences."
27. Proper sentence was explained in Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P - (2004) 7 SCC 257State of U.P - (2004) 7 SCC 257 by observing that in criminal cases awarding of sentence is not a mere Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 15 CRA-1279-2012 formality. Where the statute has given the court a choice of sentence with maximum and minimum limit presented then an element of discretion is vested with the court. This discretion can not be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. It will have to be exercised taking into consideration the gravity of offence, the manner in which it is committed, the age, the sex of the accused, in other words the sentence to be awarded will have to be considered in the background of the fact of each case and the court while doing so should bear in mind the principle of proportionality. The sentence awarded should be neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low.
28. In Mallan @ Rajan Kani - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2442 the step father had committed rape on 14 year victim in the period of May- June, 2012 and Apex Court awarded the sentence as below taking into consideration the financial position and age of the appellant:
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant thereafter argued on the sentence. Presently, the appellant is in his 40's and he had already undergone more than 8 years of sentence. His financial condition is such that he will never been able to pay the fine of Rs.2 lakhs which has been additionally imposed upon him, states his counsel who has been assigned to argue this court as a legal aid matter.
5. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the sentence to 10 years and retain the fine amount as Rupees Two lakhs.Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 16 CRA-1279-2012 The appellant shall pay the said fine amount within a period of one year from today.
29. In this case also, the appellant was of 40 years of age at the time of arrest on 12.07.2011 and now his age is about 54 years. In the instant case, the additional fact is that he is the biological father of the victim (PW/5) and no other female was available in the house and due to the act of the appellant the victim (PW/5) got pregnancy. Accordingly, in the light of Mallan @ Rajan Kani (supra) and considering the principle of proportionality, age and totality of the facts and circumstances, a period of 14 years actual jail sentence is appropriate sentence under section 376 of the IPC and we alter the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) to 14 years actual rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand). No interference is required in the sentence of section 506 of the IPC. In the case of default of payment of fine of Rs.52,000/- (Fifty Two Thousand) (Rs.50,000/- under section 376 of the IPC and Rs.2,000/- under section 506 of the IPC), the appellant shall suffer one year further rigorous imprisonment.
30. The appellant shall pay the fine amount within the said period of one year from release on completing the 14 years of sentence. In case the said fine amount is not paid by the appellant within the stipulated time, the appellant shall undergo one year rigorous imprisonment of further sentence. On realization, the total fine amount Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/28/2025 7:43:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11170 17 CRA-1279-2012 shall be paid to the victim (PW/5) as compensation.
31. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
32. Copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the appellant through concerned Superintendent of Jail. The record be transmitted to the trial Court. The supersession warrant be prepared and transmitted to the concerned Central Jail forthwith.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 4/28/2025
7:43:40 PM