Ravi @ Pushpraj Singh vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 14449 MP

                        1               Cr.A. No.2468/1998




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR

                    BEFORE
        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO

             ON THE 09th NOVEMBER, 2022
            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2468 of 1998

Between:-



            RAVI ALIAS PUSHPARAJ SINGH SON
            OF SHRI MULAYAM SINGH PARMAR,
            AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDENT
            OF     SAGARWARA      P.S   JATARA
            DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (M.P)




                                             .....APPELLANT

            (BY SHRI VIJAY NAYAK, ADVOCATE
            WITH      SHRI        J.P.DHIMOLE,
            ADVOCATE)

                            AND

            THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
            THROUGH P.S JATARA, DISTRICT
                             2                   Cr.A. No.2468/1998


             TIKAMGARH (M. P)



                                                    .....RESPONDENT

                 (BY SHRI ANOOP SONKAR, PANEL
                 LAWYER)



..........................................................................................
      Reserved on :- 29.09.2022

      Passed on :- 09.11.2022
..........................................................................................

This revision coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed
the following:

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.1998 passed by the

Special Judge, Tikamgarh, in Special Criminal Case No.222/97.

2. As per prosecution story, on 19.12.1996 at about 4 pm at

village Sagarwada, prosecutrix who is a widow lady, was cleaning

the food grains. She was alone at house, suddenly, appellant came

there and caught hold her. She tried to escape but he slapped her

and pushed her on the floor and committed rape against her

consent. She lodged written complainant to Superintendent of

Police, Tikamgarh then FIR has been registered against the

appellant under Section 376 of IPC. After completion of entire

investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before

the learned trial Court under Section 376 of IPC and 3(1)(11) of

SC/ST Act.

3. The learned trial Court conducted trial against the appellant

and held him guilty for committing offence punishable under

Section 376 of IPC and sentenced for 7 year RI with fine of

Rs.5000/- in default of fine, imposed further RI for one year. The

appellant was also convicted under Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act

and sentenced for RI for one year with fine of Rs.2000/- in default

of fine, imposed RI for 2 months.

4. The aforesaid findings are challenged by the appellant

before this Court on the ground that, the learned trial Court relied

on FIR which was delayed and lodged on next day. The Court also

relied on the testimony of the prosecutrix without any

corroboration independently. Some of witnesses categorically

admitted that, no such incident was happened but it was ignored

by the trial Court erroneously. The appellant is innocent and

falsely implicated by the complainant with the help of Police. Her

statement is also not corroborated by the medical evidence. The

prosecutrix (P.W-4) suppressed the real incident and narrated false

story. Hence, appellant is entitled to be acquitted from the charge

levelled against him.

5. Admittedly, the prosecutrix is a widow. At the time of the

incident, she was aged about 25 years. It is stated by her that she

was alone at the time of incident. At about 4 pm, at her house

when she was cleaning food grains, doors were open and appellant

who is known to her, came there and abused her and when she

objected, the appellant caught hold her and pushed her on the

floor. He slapped her and forcefully committed rape with her by

putting cloth on her mouth. She stated that appellant committed

sexual intercourse with her for about half an hour then he

threatened her to kill her and ran away from the spot. Thereafter,

her children aged about 7 to 10 years old, returned to home from

their school. Then she went to Police Station Jatara but Police did

not register her complaint, therefore, she returned back to the

village and next day she filed written complainant to the

Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh then FIR was registered

against the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the appellant

is innocent. He is falsely implicated in this case with intention by

the prosecutrix who is a widow. She got married again with

Ramdayal. This fact was also admitted by prosecutrix during her

cross-examination. Hence, his conviction is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has

vehemently opposed the aforesaid argument and supported the

impugned judgment.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the evidence available on record.

9. In the present case, the lady is married and widow and she

had two children. Neither her medical report supports the

prosecution case nor P.W-2 (Dr. Madhu Jain) found any injury on

her body. FSL report is also not on record to establish the case

against the appellant, therefore, there is a sole testimony of the

prosecutrix for considering this appeal filed by the appellant.

10. There are some other material facts available on record

which are creating doubt on the testimony of the prosecutrix. She

was living with her in-laws (mother-in-law, father-in-law and

brother-in-law) but surprisingly after the incident without

informing them as stated by her, she has directly proceeded to

Police Station and she also stated that, the report was not lodged

by the Police then next day she went to Superintendent of Police.

Her report is Exhibit-P/3 which is addressed to the Superintendent

of Police, Tikamgarh. Neither she has stated that after incident or

at evening time she had informed her in-laws about the incident

nor any of her family member came to support her evidence or the

prosecution story during trial. Her father-in-law (Setu) D.W-2 was

examined as a defence witness and he stated that they were not

aware about the incident and the prosecutrix did not inform them

about anything, therefore, sole testimony of the prosecutrix is not

sufficient and seems unreliable in support of the prosecution case.

11. It is important that in report Exhibit-P/3 it was not

mentioned by her that she went to Police Station, Jatara but Police

did not lodge her report. From Exhibit-P/3, it appears that the

appellant had beaten her badly and there was swelling on her body.

Report was produced on 20.12.1996 before the Superintendent of

Police, Tikamgarh. Same day, doctor examined her but in MLC

report Exhibit-P/2 she did not find any injury on her body.

12. It is mentioned earlier that her evidence was not

corroborated by the medical evidence nor by any other witnesses.

Although from the spot map Exhibit-P/1 it is apparently clear that

she was residing in a basti where the houses were constructed

adjacent to each other. According to the prosecutrix incident

happened at 4 pm. Generally, at that time ladies of the family

remain present at their home and in the village as per their

common tendency they use to sit in front of their houses in the

afternoon or evening time. From the spot map also it appears that

there was no boundary wall between their houses, therefore, it is

doubtful that at that time, any person entered in the house for

committing offence forcefully as stated by the prosecutrix.

13. Further, that the prosecutrix was able bodied to resist/oppose

the act of the appellant but from her conduct and evidence it is

apparently clear that while commission of offence by the appellant

she was silent and her hands were free and appellant was bare

handed. She has not attempted to escape herself form the

appellant, it means, she was the willing party. She has also stated

in her cross-examination that before this incident, the appellant

thrown stones on her house after consuming liquor. He has also

knocked her door and abused her by using filthy language. Said

incident was also not reported to the Police.

14. In para 18 of her cross-examination she has stated that after

two months from the incident she went to the meeting held by

Bahujan Samaj Party at Tikamgarh and informed the leaders about

the incident. They helped her to start criminal proceedings against

the appellant. The conduct of the prosecutrix is also creating some

reasonable suspicion. In para 11 of the cross-examination she has

stated that she is illiterate. Present case was registered on the

written complaint Exhibit-P/3. She explained that application was

typed at bus stand Tikamgarh. She herself unable to read over it so

question arises that how and with the help of whom Exhibit-P/3

was typed.

15. In Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe Vs. State of Maharashtra

(2006) 10 SCC 92:, this Court reiterated that the sole testimony

of the prosecutrix could be relied upon if it inspires the

confidence of the Court:

"9. It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the Court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The Courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the

entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen."

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Sadashiv Ramrao

Habde Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 92

held as under:

9. It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the Court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The Courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen.

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds the

testimony of prosecutrix not reliable, cogent and trustworthy and

conviction of the appellant cannot be based on her sole testimony.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant who is in jail, is

directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

18. Let original record of the Court below along with copy of

this judgment be sent back for information and compliance.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO ) JUDGE

anu ANUPRIYA Digitally signed by ANUPRIYA SHARMA CHOUBEY DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,

SHARMA 2.5.4.20=39fa4048c7a93442ff8e79347e51ed0f6f655 c64cb6d99dcf7a36d69ef167878, pseudonym=2142156D91516ACA40F2291D4FF91E 27E57BADA8, serialNumber=04B33FA62D9E8571AA55F602EA8D

CHOUBEY 77DCFCFCE3A6B69011155705CFD2CEC5B118, cn=ANUPRIYA SHARMA CHOUBEY Date: 2022.11.10 11:57:31 +05'30'