Madhya Pradesh High Court
Imarti Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 January, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 12th OF JANUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8436 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. IMARTI BAI W/O SHRI UTTAM RAJAK AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O VILLAGE RAJABANDEE
P.S. PATERA DISTT. DAMOH (M.P.)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PARVEZ AHMED QURESHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION HATTA, DISTT. DAMOH
(M.P)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AMAN PATEL - PANEL LAWYER)
RESERVED ON : 13.12.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 12.01.2024
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, this court passed the following:
2
JUDGMENT
1. This present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.08.2022 passed in S.T. No. 38/2017 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge Hatta, Distt. Damoh (M.P.) . By the impugned judgment trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 182 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months R.I. and fine of Rs. 200/- and under Section 211 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 28.01.2005 complainant (who is an accused in this case), resident of village Madia had given a written report that on 23.01.2005, she was forcibly raped by the Mahesh Bilthare of the village on the farm and he threatened to kill her if she reported the matter. On the report of complainant Crime No.19/2005 under Sections 376 and 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code was taken up in investigation.
3. In the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, appellant presented an affidavit with her signature in which she had written that she does not want her genitals test. After not conducting the medical examination of the complainant, on 08.02.2005 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were recorded in writing in which she has given contrary statement to the FIR and denied to threaten to kill her and stated that false report has been made as per instructions of villagers. Mahesh 3 Bilthare was summoned as per the report and it was found that accused Mahesh Bilthare, on the date of incident was present before the Janpat Panchayat Pathariya in a government car and also presented a certificate of attendance. During entire analysis of the report of complainant, it was found that she made a false report at police station which was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
4. The statement of appellant was found to be false but with regard to offence bearing Crime No. 19/05 punishable under Sections 376 and 506-B of IPC, Khariji No. 1/05 dated 06.03.2005 was prepared during investigation. On 06.03.2005, JMFC gave information to the complainant about the matter which was accepted by the Court and after perusing all forms and Section 182 of IPC, directed to take action under Section 211 of IPC. In the police station, in compliance with the order of the Court, the complainant was found guilty under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC, on making the false report to the police and for investigation of false report by the police.
5. Police after due investigation, filed charge sheet before competent Court and competent Court framed the charge against the appellant. Appellant abjured the guilt and stated that she was innocent, she was falsely implicated due to the previous enmity. Thereafter, trial Court after taking the 4 evidence and after hearing the argument of both the parties found appellant guilty under Section 182 and 211 of IPC and convicted her as above.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant filed this appeal on the ground that independent witness before the trial Court convincingly ignored this crucial aspect of the matter and convicted appellant under wrong angle of vision, thus warranting interference by this Court.
7. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that trial Court while convicting and sentencing the appellant has bluntly overlooked testimony of the eye witnesses and prosecution failed to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt. There are so many contradiction, omission and development in the statement of prosecution witnesses which makes the whole prosecution story under the shadow of doubt but the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and sentence has bluntly overlooked the same. So he prays for setting aside the judgment. Alternatively, he prayed that appellant is a lady and her jail sentence be set aside and fine amount be enhanced.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and pray for dismissal of this appeal.
9. The question arises before this Court is that whether trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant and appeal may be allowed. 5
10. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of trial Court record.
11. P.W. 6 Y.S. Chouhan (Nirikshak), stated in examination-in-chief that on 27.01.2005, he was posted as a Police Station Incharge, Hata. On that day appellant filed a written complaint before him which is Ex. P-2. According to complaint of appellant, he registered an FIR bearing Crime No.19/2005 under Section 376 and 506(B) IPC i.e. Ex. P/3. He further submitted that she had refused for medical examination in regard to offence. He further submitted that appellant/complainant filed an affidavit before SDM, Hatta, Distt. Damoh and stated that she was not interested for her medical examination. The affidavit is Ex. P/6. He further submitted that he has taken statement of appellant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which is Ex. P/7. He found that the FIR lodged by the appellant was false and fabricated then he lodged FIR under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC against the appellant.
12. In lengthy cross-examination, it is found that appellant is intact in her cross-examination and considering other evidence, it is found that all prosecution witnesses are intact in their evidence. All evidence is based on documentary evidence. In cross-examination they are substantially intact so there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence.
13. So considering the evidence of prosecution, it is found that prosecution has proved its case against appellant under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC. So 6 in considered opinion of this Court, trial Court has not committed any error in holding the guilt of appellant under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC, so guilt of the appellant under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC is upheld by this Court.
14. So far as sentence is concerned, appellant's counsel submitted that appellant is a lady and she is a rustic villager and therefore, pray for leniency and exonerating from the jail sentence.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that appellant is facing the criminal case since the year 2017. To meet the end of justice, jail sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside and enhance the fine amount upto Rs.25,000/-. In case of the default of payment of fine amount, appellant shall have to undergo six months R.I. The fine amount must be deposited before the trial Court within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. Fine amount, if any, already deposited shall be adjusted.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE VKV/-
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VINAY VERMA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH JABALPUR, KUMAR 2.5.4.20=13db8761eb70b132ff4027 3d1cd6cbbe7943345d9b89a3be51 b2002de183fc51, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, VERMA serialNumber=24244EEED4BE5112 B2864A7944D29B2B81856B49A706 89CB14D4EBD1688FF149, cn=VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2024.01.24 15:10:11 +05'30'