Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amarsingh vs The State Of M.P. on 8 February, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1034 of 1999
BETWEEN:-
AMARSINGH S/O DEVSINGH, AGED 22 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE DHAPRIYA HEDI, TAHSIL JEERAPUR,
DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SHIVENDRA SINGH RAWAT - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
JEERAPUR, DISTRICT RAJGARH
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE - G.A.)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This is appeal u/S 374 of the Cr.P.C. arising out of judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 12.08.1999 passed by Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Bioara) in S.T.No.103/1995 whereby the appellant has
been convicted under section 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years RI
with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.
Prosecution story is that on 15.05.1995 when the prosecutrix had gone to
forest in the night at 8-9 p.m. then accused Anarsingh, Radheshyam and
Ramchandra kidnapped her and her mouth was shut and on the point of knife,
she was taken to the forest of village Kuanpan. It is alleged that accused
Signing time: 2/8/2024 5:33:32
Radheshyam and Ramchandra committed rape with her. After sometime one
Guddu of his community met her and got her released from them. Thereafter
she went to her maternal uncle's village at Bhopalpura and met her brother
Suresh and narrated the entire story. Thereafter the written complaint was made
to Collector, Rajgarh vide Ex.P/1 and case was registered at P.S. Jeerapur vide
Ex.P/7. After investigation chargesheet was filed.
2. The accused abjured their guilt and pleaded that they are innocent and
have been falsely implicated.
3. Trial court framed two issues -
(i) whether the prosecutrix was kidnapped by the accused
persons against her will with an intention to commit rape
?
(ii) whether accused Radheshyam and Ramchandra
committed rape with her against her will ?
4. The prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW-1, her maternal uncle
Anarsingh (PW-2), brother Sureshchandra (PW-7) Dr. Smt. Joshi (PW-3), Dr.
Yogendra Shrivastava (PW-4) and husband of the prosecutrix Lalsingh (PW-6)
and Investigating Officer R.D.Morya. Prosecutrix narrated that when she had
gone to forest for nature call and cleaning her mouth, at that time accused
Anarsingh, Radheshyam and Ramchandra caught hold her and shut her mouth
at the point of knife and she was taken to forest. It is alleged that accused
Ramchandra and Radheshyam committed rape with her She has made a
specific allegation of rape against the accused Ramchandra and Radheshyam.
Anarsingh (PW-2) also supported the version of prosecutrix and stated that
Guddu had brought the prosecutrix to him and narrated the entire story. Her
statement is further corroborated by the testimony of her brother
Signing time: 2/8/2024 5:33:32
Sureshchandra, who also stated that prosecutrix had narrated the incident.
Investigating Officer, RD.Morya (PW-8) deposed that on the written complaint
submitted to Collector, he got instructions to investigate the matter and
thereafter he recorded the statement of prosecutrix and her brother and
submitted his report ExP/7. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination.
Dr Smt. Chhaya Joshi (PW-3) deposed that on 20.5.1995 she conducted
medical examination of the prosecutrix and she found abrasions on knee and
thigh with minor injuries. Her report is ExP/2. She further deposed that
prosecutrix was found to be habitual of intercourse but no definite opinion of
rape can be given. Investigating Officer R.DMorya (PW-8) further stated that
vaginal slides were sent to FSL, Gwalior. Its report is Ex.P/14 and in the report,
the presence of semen has been affirmed.
5. The defence has examined Guddu as DW-1. He did not support the
version of prosecutrix
6. After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration
the testimony of prosecutrix (PW-1), Anarsingh (PW-2) and Sureshchandra
(PW-7), it is proved beyond doubt that accused persons had kidnapped the
prosecutrix with an intention to commit rape against her will. Her testimony is
further corroborated by Dr. Smt. Joshi (PW-3) and Dr. Yogendra Shrivastava
(PW-4). Thus, the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses is well
corroborated with medical evidence. There is nothing in the cross examination
or in defence to dislodge the testimony of prosecutrix and other witnesses
which is well corroborated with the medical evidence. Thus, the conviction of
appellant under section 366 IPC is maintained
7. Heard on the question of sentence.
8. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no allegation and
Signing time: 2/8/2024 5:33:32
conviction under section 376 IPC. The appellant has been convicted under
section 366 IPC and sentenced to RI for 5 years. The incident had place in the
year 1995 i.e. more than 28 years have passed. The appellant was on bail during
trial and jail sentence was also suspended during pendency of appeal. He did
not misuse the liberty. No purpose would be served in sending the appellant to
jail after such a long period. Appellant has already undergone jail sentence of
13-14 days. It is prayed that jail sentence may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him and fine amount may be enhanced.
9. Counsel for the State supports the judgment of conviction and
sentence.
10. After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration
that incident had taken place in the year 1995, appellant was on bail during trial,
there is no minimum jail sentence prescribed under the aforesaid offence, no
purpose would be served in sending the appellant in jail after such long period.
Therefore, the jail sentence of the appellant may be sentenced to the period
already undergone and fine amount may be increased which may be directed to
be paid to the prosecutrix.
11. In view of aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction is
maintained. The jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already
undergone by him and the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to
Rs.15,000/-. Out of Rs.15,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- shall by paid as compensation to
the prosecutrix by the trial court. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited
by the appellant within a period of 3 months from today. The bail bonds of the
appellant shall be discharged after deposit of the fine amount. In case if the
appellant fails to deposit the fine amount within the aforesaid period, the
Signing time: 2/8/2024 5:33:32
appellant shall undergo the remaining jail sentence as per the order of trial court.
C.c. as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signing time: 2/8/2024 5:33:32
