Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munnalal vs The State Of M.P. on 20 September, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
Cr.A. No. 629/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 20th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 629 of 1999
Between:-
MUNNALAL S/O BHIMAJI
AGED 23 YEARS R/O VILLAGE GOPIPURA
POLICE STATION, BAGLI,
DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS SEEMA MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE THROUGH LEAGAL AID)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P.
THROUGH P.S. BAGLI
DISTT DEWAS(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI R.S. SURYAWANSHI, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 09.09.2022
Delivered on : 20.09.2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for judgment this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Satyendra
Kumar Singh passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Cr.A. No. 629/1999
The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) [in short "Cr.P.C."] against the judgment
dated 15.04.1999, passed by the Court of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge,
Dewas (M.P.) in S.T. No.210/1996, whereby the appellant has been convicted for
the offences punishable under Section 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short "IPC") and sentenced to undergo 05 years R.I. and 10 years R.I.
with fine of 1,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story, in brief is that:
(i) On 06.03.1996 at about 12:00 noon, complainant alongwith his wife,
mother-in-law and sister-in-law prosecutrix, aged about 17 years, was going from
his Village Imlipura to Village Bijwas and reached in the forest of Chawariya,
appellant alongwith co-accused persons Radheyshyam, Sukhlal and Devkaran
came there. Co-accused Radhyshyam and Devkaran caught hold of the
complainant, while appellant and co-accused Sukhlal caught hold of the hands of
the prosecutrix and took her towards forest and when complainant objected, co-
accused persons Radheyshyam and Devkaran assaulted him. Thereafter, all of
them had forcefully taken the prosecutrix with them. Complaint narrated the
incident to his father and others, searched the prosecutrix and at about 20:00 p.m.,
made oral complaint to the police, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. P-1) was
registered against the appellant and co-accused persons at P.S. Bagli, Distt. Dewas,
where for the offences punishable u/S 366 of IPC.
(ii) On the next day, Head Constable Yaswant Rao went to the place of incident
and prepared spot map (Ex. P-8). On 09.04.1996 at about 11:25 a.m., ASI M.G.
Shrivastava recovered the prosecutrix vide baramadgi panchnama (Ex. P-7),
recorded the statements of the prosecutrix, wherein she stated that the appellant
had forcefully took her at various places and committed rape upon her repeatedly.
Cr.A. No. 629/1999
ASI M.G. Shrivastava vide letter (Ex. P-9) sent the prosecutrix to PHC Kamlapur
for medical examination, where Dr. N. Gupta medically examined her and found
no external or internal injury on all over her body. ASI M.G. Shrivastava arrested
the appellant as per arrest memo (Ex. P-4) and vide letter (Ex. P-10) sent him to
PHC, Kamlapur, where Dr. S.H. Mandhanya medically examined him and found
capable of doing sexual intercourse. After completion of investigation, filed the
chargesheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagli, Distt.
Dewas, who committed the same to the Court of Sessions Judge, Distt. Dewas.
3. Learned Trial Court considering the material prima-facie available on
record, framed the charges under Section 366 and 376 of IPC against the appellant
and co-accused persons, who abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. In their
statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they pleaded their false
implication in the matter.
4. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record, acquitted the co-accused prsons, but recorded the
findings that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376(1) of IPC and
therefore, vide judgment dated 15.04.1999 convicted him for the aforesaid offence
and sentenced him, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
5. Being aggrieved with the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix was admittedly
major married lady. It is apparent from her statement that she knew the appellant
and voluntarily went with him. She visited several places with the appellant
through public conveyance and lived for a month with him. She admitted in her
cross-examination that she had made statements before an officer that she was
Cr.A. No. 629/1999
living with the appellant on her own will. Medical evidence do not support the
prosecution case. Under such circumstances, learned Trial Court has committed a
legal error in holding the appellant guilty while appreciating the evidence available
on record, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted from the charges framed
against him. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has
relied upon the judgments passed in the case of Kailash Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh[2008 SCC Online MP 520] and in the case of State of Himachal
Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Alias Chhotu[(2008) 10 SCC 104].
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State, while supporting the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the judgment
was passed by the Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence available on
record. Same is well reasoned establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
9. Prosecution has examined 9 prosecution witnesses including complainant
(PW-1), his sister-in-law prosecutrix (PW-2) and his mother-in-law(PW-3) as eye
witnesses. Other material witnesses are ASI M.G. Shrivastava (PW-8), who
recovered the prosecutrix and investigated the case and H.C. Babu Singh Bhatti
(PW-9), who lodged the FIR.
10. Complainant (PW-1), his sister-in-law prosecutrix (PW-2) and his mother-
in-law(PW-3) all have admitted in their cross-examination that prosecutrix was
married twice prior to the incident and her first marriage was solemnized with
Amar Singh, while second marriage (Natra) was done with Ranglal. Prosecutrix
(PW-2) herself deposed her age to be about 19-20 years. Learned Trial Court while
Cr.A. No. 629/1999
recording her statements during trial observed her apparent age about 18 years and
there is nothing on record to show that she was minor at the time of incident, hence
it is established that she was major married lady at the time of incident.
11. Complainant (PW-1), his sister-in-law prosecutrix (PW-2) and his mother-
in-law(PW-3) although in their examination-in-chief have supported the
prosecution case and deposed that on the date of incident when they were going
from Village Implipura to Bijwas and reached near Chawariya forest, appellant
alongwith co-accused persons came there and forcefully took the prosecutrix with
them, but their statements are inconsistent on the point of acts, said to be
committed by the appellants and co-accused persons at the time of incident and on
other material issues.
12. Prosecutrix (PW-2) in para 5 of her cross-examination admitted that while
living with her first husband at village Ghalghevaria, she used to go to appellant's
village Gopipura and meet appellant Munnalal, due to which her husband was
angry with her. She in para 6 of her cross-examination also admitted that
complainant's father had come to her father to talk about the marriage of the
prosecutri with the appellant. She admitted in her cross-examination that she lived
about a month with the appellant and during that period she never raised any
alarm. She in para 8 of her cross-examination also admitted that during aforesaid
period her statments were recorded in a court at Sonkachh, wherein she had stated
that she was voluntarily living with the appellant.
13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, defence taken by the appellant that
prosecutrix herself went with the appellant on her own will and she was consenting
party can not be ruled out, hence this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has committed error in
holding the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Section 366 and
Cr.A. No. 629/1999
376(1) of IPC.
14. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment
cannot sustain in the eyes of law and facts on record, and is liable to be set aside.
Hence, conviction of the appellant cannot be upheld and the appeal filed by the
appellant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this Court passes the following
order:
(i) Criminal Appeal No.629/1999 filed by the appellant - Munnalal is allowed.
(ii)The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.04.1999 passed
in S.T.No.210/1996 by which appellant has been convicted under Section 366
and 376(1) of IPC and sentenced as stated in para 1 of the judgment is hereby
set aside.
(iii) Appellant be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.
(iv) Fine amount(if any) deposited by the appellant be refunded to him.
The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court record forthwith
alongwith the copy of this judgment. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the
concerned jail authorities for its speedy compliance and necessary action.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh)
sh/- Judge
20.09.2022
SEHAR HASEEN
2022.09.20
18:36:01 +05'30'
