Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramroop Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8410 of 2022
(RAMROOP TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 08-05-2023
Shri Siddhant Kochar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K. Kashyap - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.17774/2023, which is an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to appellant- Ramroop Tiwari arising out of
judgment dated 26.07.2022 delivered in ST No. 148/2021 by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C.
and Section 5(l) and 6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act and sentenced to undergo 14
years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- along with default stipulation.
Shri Kashyap informs this Court that the victim is already served.
It is argued that as per the prosecution story on 10.04.2021, the appellant
called the victim at his house for the purpose of coaching and when victim
visited his house, there was nobody in the house and the appellant committed
rape with her. The appellant provided her a mobile phone. After sometime, she
returned the mobile phone. The appellant made another effort to provide her a
mobile phone which she did not accept. It is further alleged that in September,
2021, the victim was raped in 'Saar', which is a room to keep cattle. Thereafter,
on 25.09.2021 again in the said cattle room, the appellant allegedly sexually
assaulted the victim. A written report was lodged on 04.10.2021.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is an inordinate and
unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. The cross-examination of prosecutrix
shows that there is previous enmity between the parties and the family members
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 5/9/2023
11:41:57 AM
including the victim did not visit the house of the appellant. In order to canvass
the improbability of the incident, it is argued that when there was such enmity
and both the families did not visit one another's house, there was no occasion
for committing rape on 10.04.2021.
The cross-examination of victim is relied upon for another purpose that
she fairly admitted that brother of the present appellant allegedly lodged an
F.I.R. Ex.D-2 against the mother, sister and aunt of the victim. She, in her
cross-examination, admitted that this F.I.R. was lodged 2-3 days before the
main incident and had it not been recorded, she would not have lodged
complaint on 4.10.2021. It is further submitted that in her cross-examination she
has stated that 'Saar' is adjacent and in between the house of the appellant and
the victim and it is visible from outside. By placing reliance on recent judgment
of this Court pronounced on 12.04.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 728/2019,
it is argued that the statement of the victim is not of sterling quality and in
absence of corroboration, her statement should not be accepted. Reliance is
placed on paragraphs 45, 46 and 43 of the aforesaid judgment, which are as
under :-
"45. The eyebrows are raised on the nature of incident by
projecting that the incident of sexual assault has taken place
in the broad day light at 11:00 AM in 'Kotha' which is in a
densely populated area. By showing the statements of
mother and father of victim, (PW-4) and (PW-8)
respectively, it was established that- (a) adjacent to 'Kotha'
there exists a kirana shop, (b) a 'Pulia'™ in which
people used to sit for whole day and gossip amongst
themselves, (c) a 'Jhiriya' where people of same village and
other nearby villages continuously come and take bath, (d)
a 'Shiv Mandir' from where as per testimony of both the
parents the entire 'Kotha' was visible and both the
witnesses deposed that from the side of 'Shiv
Mandir'™, there was no door in the 'Kotha' (e) it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 5/9/2023
11:41:57 AM
was also admitted by parents of the victim that the cattle
were taken for grazing during early morning and by 7-8
AM, (f) the 'Kotha' needs to be cleaned by removing the
cow dung. The cattle come back to 'Kotha' by 10-11 AM.
The cumulative effect of these is that 'Kotha' is situated
adjacent to aforesaid places where movement of public
continues for whole day.
46. The testimony of prosecutrix was questioned on yet
another ground by contending that she deposed that she
suffered injuries because she was thrown on the rough
floor of 'Kotha' by the appellant. However, there no
corresponding injuries were found on the body of the
victim. In fact, no internal injuries were found on her body.
The probability factor is certainly important and it is not
safe to accept the statement of victim alone as a gospel
truth, unless her statement is of 'sterling quality'.
53. To summarize, we are inclined to hold that considering
the geographical location of 'Kotha' the availability of
people all around at 11:00 AM and absence of injury marks
on the body of victim makes the case of prosecution highly
doubtful and it is totally unsafe to give stamp of approval
to the conviction in absence of any corroboration in the
facts and circumstances of the present case. In other
words, the statement of prosecutrix alone does not make
the case of prosecution as a foolproof case. We are unable
to countenance the judgment of conviction based on the
statements of victim (PW-3), mother (PW-4) and father
(PW-8)."
Lastly, it is submitted that the medical evidence, F.S.L. and D.N.A.
report do not support the story of the prosecution. The age of the victim is
improperly determined and P.W.5 could not show any material whatsoever on
the basis of which the date of birth was so recorded in the admission register.
Final hearing of the appeal is not possible in near future. Thus, remaining jail
sentence of the appellant be suspended.
Prayer is opposed by the learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/ State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 5/9/2023
11:41:57 AM
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing any
conclusive opinion on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail
sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A No. 17774 of 2022, is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant- Ramroop Tiwari is hereby suspended
and it is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only)
with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
with a further direction to appear before the trial Court, Pawai on 12 th of
July 2023 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in
this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vikram
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 5/9/2023
11:41:57 AM
