Madhya Pradesh High Court
Punjab Singh @ Vishnu Bahadur Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 2 January, 2018
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 2213 of 2004
Parties Name Panjab Singh @ Vishnu Bahadur Singh
Khairwar
vs
State of Madhya Pradesh
Bench Constituted Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele &
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo
Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele
Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting
Name of counsels for parties For appellant: Ms. Manju Khatri,
Amicus Curiae.
For respondent/State: Shri Pradeep
Singh, Government Advocate.
Law laid down Significant paragraph numbers (J U D G M E N T) Pronounced on : 02.01.2018
1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 27.09.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.48/2004. The trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(cha) of Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.200/-.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that the appellant had taken the prosecutrix, who was at that time about six years old, near a nala and committed sexual intercourse with her, due to which, her vagina was ruptured and blood was oozing. She cried. She
-:- 2 -:-
Cr.A. No.2213 of 2004
came to her mother and thereafter, her mother lodged a written report at the police station, which is Ex.P2. On the aforesaid report, a FIR was registered at the police station, which is Ex.P10. Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against the appellant. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. The trial Court, after trial, held the appellant guilty for commission of offence and awarded sentence as mentioned above in the judgment.
3. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. He is in jail for the last 14 years. Hence, the sentence of the appellant be awarded as already undergone.
4. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and awarded proper sentence.
5. PW-1 Shakuntala, is the mother of the prosecutrix. She deposed that at around 12 O'clock in the noon, the appellant had taken my daughter to a nearby nala and committed rape with her. There was injury on her private part. I heard the cry of the my daughter, thereafter, she came to me and told me that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter,
-:- 3 -:-
Cr.A. No.2213 of 2004
I went to the house of the father of the appellant and told him about the story. Other residents of the village came there. Thereafter, I went to police station and submitted a written complaint Ex.P2 and signed the same. Police sent the prosecutrix for medical examination.
6. PW-2 Anarkali (prosecutrix) deposed that, at the relevant time, she was studying in class 1 in a school. The appellant had taken her to nearby nala (bahra) and he had committed sexual intercourse with her, due to which blood was oozing from her private part. She informed her mother, who was at the house and thereafter, mother had taken her to the police station. Police had sent her to the hospital, where she was examined. She told the incident to the police.
7. PW-3 Agnu is an independent witness. He deposed that at around 12 O'clock I was at my house and mother of the prosecutrix told me that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her daughter and same facts were told to me by the prosecutrix also. Same facts have been deposed by PW-4 Raimuniya, who is a neighbour. PW-6 Shiv Prasad is also neighbour of the prosecutrix. He deposed that I was eating at my house and I went to the house of the prosecutrix after hearing cry and I saw that blood was oozing from the private part of the prosecutrix. Mother of the prosecutrix told me that the appellant
-:- 4 -:-
Cr.A. No.2213 of 2004
had committed sexual intercourse with her daughter. Same facts were told by the prosecutrix. PW-8 Kamla Devi is also a neighbour. She deposed the same facts as deposed by the PW-6.
8. PW-7 Dr. Smt. Kalpana Ravi deposed that on 18.03.2004 I was posted as lady doctor at District Hospital Sidhi. On the aforesaid date, I examined the prosecutrix. There was incised injury, measuring 1.5x2x1/4 CM, on labia minoril. Hymen was ruptured. There was injury incised injury, measuring 1x1x1 CM on posterior kemisore and blood was oozing. There was swelling in the vagina of the prosecutrix and she complained that she was feeling pain. The injuries suffered by the prosecutrix were caused due to forceful sexual intercourse.
9. PW-11 Yagya Sharan Mishra deposed that I was posted as Head Constable at Jiyawan Police Station on 18.03.2004. On the aforesaid date, Shakuntala Bai submitted a written complaint and on the basis of that written complaint, FIR vide Ex.P10 was registered and I signed the same.
10. PW-13 Ramesh Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that I conducted investigation of the case. I recorded statements of the prosecutrix, Shiv Prasad Kushwaha, Kamla Devi and Shakuntala Devi on 18.03.2004. I prepared spot map on 19.03.2004, which is Ex.P4 and signed the same. On
-:- 5 -:-
Cr.A. No.2213 of 2004
19.03.2004, I recorded statements of Agnu Yadav, Raimuniya, Lalman Kushwaha, Ramesh Kushwaha and Kishor Kumar @ Babbu. The appellant was arrested on 19.03.2004 vide arrest Ex.P1 and signed the same. Accused was sent for medical examination.
11. PW-5 Dr. A.K. Sharma examined the appellant. He deposed that the appellant was capable to perform sexual intercourse.
12. FIR is Ex.P10, which was lodged on the same date by PW-1. In the FIR, it is mentioned that the appellant had committed rape with the prosecutrix. As per the report of FSL Ex.P13, blood was found on the underwear of the prosecutrix and spots of sperm were also found. From the evidence of the prosecutrix, her mother and the neighbours, this fact has been proved that the appellant had committed rape with the prosecutrix. The doctor PW-7, who examined the prosecutrix, specifically deposed that she noticed injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix. Those injuries were caused by forceful sexual intercourse. At the time of incident, the prosecutrix was aged about six years. Looking to the aforesaid facts on record, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(1)(h) of
-:- 6 -:-
Cr.A. No.2213 of 2004
IPC. The appellant has committed a heinous offence, hence, the trial Court has awarded a proper sentence.
13. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.
(S.K. Gangele) (Smt. Anjuli Palo)
Judge Judge
Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI
Date: 2018.01.04 12:32:12 +05'30'
vkt