Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganesh Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2022
Author: Anjuli Palo
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
ON THE 20th OF JUNE, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1152 of 2018
Between:-
GANESH SAHU S/O JAGANNATH SAHU, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O JHIRNIYA P.S
NAZIRABAD, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SUMAN MUKHERJEE, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROGH P.S
NISHANTPURA BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SANTOSH YADAV, PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been filed by appellant/Ganesh against
judgment dated 29.1.2018 passed by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.342/2011 whereby the appellant has been
convicted under sections 366, 342 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
"IPC") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years, 1 year & 7 years with fine of
Rs.2,000/-, Nil & Rs.5,000/- respectively with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 24.1.2011 at about
Signature Not Verified
SAN
07.30 p.m. when the prosecutrix was returning home from coaching centre,
Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI
Date: 2022.06.20 18:42:23 IST
appellant/accused-Ganesh and 04 (four) persons were standing on the way.
Appellant called her. When she turned around, he gagged her mouth and
forcibly taken her on his motorcycle. When she tried to escape, appellant-
Ganesh bit on her right cheek and threatened to kill her and tied her mouth with
cloth. Appellant-Ganesh and other accused persons, namely, Anil and Bal
Kishan took her to Kalara. They took her to house of aunt (Bua) of Ganesh,
They all stayed there. The prosecutrix slept with aunt of appellant-Ganesh. On
early morning at about 05.00 am all accused persons brought the prosecutrix
from Kalara to forest of Jhirniya. The appellant-Ganesh and prosecutrix stayed
in forest. Appellant-Ganesh and other accused persons went to village and
brought meals, blanket and sleeping bed. Other accused (appellants- Anil &
Balkishan in connected appeal) went to forest. Appellant-Ganesh told the
prosecutrix if she tries to flee away, he would kill her. Appellant-Ganesh
forcibly committed rape upon the prosecutrix. In morning hours associates of
appellant-Ganesh came with meals. About 8-10 boys who came brought cattle
there for grazing saw them. They were armed with 'lathi'. When they chased
accused persons, they fled away towards village. Thereafter, prosecutrix
narrated the incident to those boys who brought her to Lodhipur and informed
at Police Station, Ahmadpur. Thereafter, the prosecutrix lodged report.
3. After investigation the Police filed charge-sheet against accused
persons for offences under sections 363, 366, 376 & 342 r/w 34 of IPC. The
trial Court after conducting trial and placing reliance on the testimony of the
prosecutrix as also the statements of the boys who were grazing cattle,
convicted the appellant for offences under sections 366, 342 & 376 of IPC and
Signature Not Verified
sentenced him as aforestated vide impugned judgment.
SAN
Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI
4. The trial Court also convicted other accused persons, namely, Annu
Date: 2022.06.20 18:42:23 IST
and Balkishan for offences u/s 366/34 & 342 of IPC and sentenced them to
undergo R.I. for 3 years & 1 year with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default
stipulations. Other accused/appellants namely, Annu @ Anil and Balkishan
have challenged the judgment dated 29.9.2012 in Criminal Appeal
No.2353/2012.
5. The appellant challenged the impugned judgment on the ground he
has been falsely implicated in the case. He is innocent person. There are number
of inconsistencies and material contradictions in the prosecution witnesses,
therefore, he is liable to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the
present case, the conviction is not based solely on the testimony of the
prosecutrix. There are other witnesses also who saw the appellant with the
prosecutrix in forest Jhirniya. The prosecutrix herself seems to be trust-worthy.
She narrated the prosecution story in the same way, as mentioned in the FIR
(Exhibit-P/1). Kalabai (PW.7) who is 'Bua' and close relative of appellant-
Ganesh herself supported the prosecution version. The boys who had taken
cattle for grazing in the forest viz. PW.4 (Dewaji) and PW.09 (Gajraj Singh)
have also duly corroborated the version of the prosecutrix. Similarly, PW.10
(Sarjan Singh) and PW.11 (Asharam) have also partly supported their testimony
and stated that they were present in the forest alongwith other persons where
Police vehicle reached. Their evidence also establishes the presence of Dhoor
Singh, Dewaji and Asharam Gurjar in forest. Sarjan Singh (PW.10) in paragraph
10 of his cross-examination has stated that some boys fled away after seeing
them. Part corroboration can also be considered for determination of the trust-
Signature Not Verified
SAN worthiness and for reliance of prosecutrix statement.
Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI
Date: 2022.06.20 18:42:23 IST
7. The prosecturix stated against the appellant. Even real aunt of
Ganesh, namely, Kalabai (PW.7) has corroborated the prosecutrix story and
statement of the prosecutrix. She stated that at about 12 hours in night Ganesh
and others boys had come to her field with the prosecutrix. Appellant-Ganesh
threatened her. Thereafter, they had meals and stayed there about 2 hours in
night in her field. At that time, the prosecutrix was with her. Thereafter, she
turned hostile. But, it is apparently clear that may be due to fear of the appellant
she turned hostile. Her husband, namely, Narmada Prasad (PW.4) also
supported the prosecution story and admitted that Ganesh belongs to his caste.
They are known to each other. Appellant-Ganesh alongwith 3-4 friends and a
girl came to their field. At early morning, before sun rise, they fled away from
their field. After sometime Police called them and only then they came to know
that appellant abducted the prosecutrix.
8. On the basis of part corroboration of the aforesaid witnesses the
testimony of the prosecutrix is found fully reliable and trust-worthy which is
also supported by statement of Doctor (PW.6) who found injury on the cheek
of the prosecutrix. There was mark of teeth cut on her cheek. The doctor stated
that victim was not accustomed to sexual intercourse. She was subjected to
rape. There was fresh bleeding. Old hymen was torn. There were blood stains
on the clothes of prosecutrix and semen also found on her 'Dupatta'. The
doctor opined that there was recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.Even
the FSL report supports the prosecution story. The father of the prosecutrix,
namely, Govind Sahu (PW.3) stated that he was informed that his daughter is at
Police Station and he was called by Police, then they reached at Police Station
to bring his daughter.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
9. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid material on record, the findings
Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI
Date: 2022.06.20 18:42:23 IST
arrived at by the trial Court appear to be just and proper. The same does not
call for any interference. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by trial Court are affirmed.
10. In the result, the appeal being sans merit, stands dismissed.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE
RM
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI
Date: 2022.06.20 18:42:23 IST
