Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rudra Dev Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1378 of 2000
BETWEEN:-
RUDRA DEV SINGH AGED 32 YEARS, S/O SHRI GULAB
SINGH, R/O HALCHAHA, P.S. NAGOUD, DISTRICT -
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI P.N. VERMA - AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
HARIJAN KALYAN THANA, STANA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI A.R.S. CHAUHAN - PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the CPC has been preferred feeling
aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.05.2000 in Special Case No.9/1999 by
Special Judge SC and ST (POA), 1989, Satna whereby the appellant/accused
has been convicted under Section 456, 294 and 506-II of IPC and Section 3(1)
(x) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced under Section 456 of IPC
for 6 months R.I., under Section 294 of IPC for 1 month R.I., under Section
506-II for 6 months R.I. and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (POA) Act,
1989 for 6 months with a direction that all the sentences to run concurrently.
2. Fact in brief are that appellant/accuse does not belong to SC or ST
category in the State of Madhya Pradesh and victim (PW-2) belongs to Chamar
caste which comes under Scheduled Caste category in the State of Madhya
Pradesh. On 22.08.1998, victim (PW-2) lodged a report against
appellant/accused in Police Station-Azak Satna that on 12.08.1998 appellant
entered in the house of victim (PW-2) and compelled her son for pressing his
legs. Son of victim (PW-2) pressed his leg and victim (PW-2) went to the house
of appellant/accused just to complain about the conduct of appellant to his
parents. Munna Singh brother of the appellant/accused came and took away the
appellant. Thereafter, on 21.08.1998 at 10 PM, appellant again came infront of
victim house and started abusing and threatened to cause death by Gunshot.
Husband of victim opened the door and appellant/accused told to him that he
will do intercourse with his daughter. When victim's husband opposed, he fired
a gunshot by katta towards the roof of house. Thereafter Vikaram Singh
younger brother of the appellant/accused came and took him away. Crime
No.33/98 was registered in P.A.- Ajak after completing the investigation. Final
report under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. was submitted and
appellant/accused was put to trial before the Court of Special Judge, SC and
ST (POA) Act, 1989 for the charges under Section 456, 294, 506-II and
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989.
3. Appellant/accused abjured guilt and claimed for trial. Prosecution
examined victim as PW-2, her husband as PW-4, her son as PW-3 and Anoop
Singh as PW-5. Investigating Officer G.P. Shrivastava as PW-6 and K.K. Naik
as PW-1.
4. In cross-examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,
appellant/accused admitted that victim belongs to SC category but advanced
the defence that in collusion with Sukhendra Singh, a false report has been
lodged due to enmity with Sukhendra Singh. Husband of victim is the servant of
that Sukhendra Singh. No evidence was adduced on behalf appellant/accused.
5. Appreciating the prosecution evidence, trial Court found the testimony
of victim (PW-2) and her husband (PW-4) and her son (PW-3) as reliable and
also found proved that victim PW-2 belongs to SC category on the basis of
oral testimony as well as caste certificate (Ex. P-2) and appellant/accused does
not belong to SC or ST category and convicted the appellant/accused under
Section 456, 294 and 506-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (POA)
Act, 1989 and sentenced as per para-1 of the judgment.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been
preferred on the ground that trial Court failed to appreciate the material
contradiction and omission in the prosecution evidence. Trial Court also failed
to appreciate the prosecution story has not been supported by independent
witnesses. Trial Court failed to appreciate that conviction cannot be based on
the testimony of family member who are interested witnesses also. Trial Court
also failed to appreciate how offence under Section 456 of IPC is made out.
Trial Court also failed to consider that no injuries sustained to family members
of the victim which shows that case is manufactured or based on concocted
story.
7. As no one appeared on behalf of appellant since 29.11.2010 then Shri
P.N. Verma, Advocate is assisted as Amicus Curiae to the Court for hearing in
the case. A report from the Special Judge was also called and is available with
the record.
8. Heard with the aid of Amicus Curiae.
9. Perused the record.
10. Testimony of victim (PW-2), her son (PW-3) and her husband (PW-
4) is consistent regarding the incident that appellant/accused entered the house
of victim (PW-2) on 12.08.1998 at 10 PM in Village Lalchaha, Nagaud and
threatened to commit sexual intercourse with daughter of victim with caused to
death and also fired with country made half gun that damaged the hut of victim
(PW-2). It is stated that appellant/accused uttered obscene words in public
place that caused annoyance to them and a report was lodged.
11. The cross-examination of victim in para-4 that contains only four
lines and nothing has been advanced even by suggestions that appellant/accused
was falsely implicated or that the prosecution story is falls. Only suggestions is
made that the appellant/accused was not in sober condition but that is not the
defence of the appellant/accused before the trial Court. Son of victim (PW-3)
and husband of the victim (PW-4) is also cross-examined but nothing has been
elicited. Anoop Singh (PW-5) has been declared hostile, so conviction of
appellant/accused on the testimony of victim (PW-2), her son (PW-3) and her
husband (PW-4) does not call for interference.
12. Hence, conviction of appellant/accused under Sections 456, 294 and
506-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 is affirmed.
13. Maximum sentence imposed is only 6 months R.I. and that is the
minimum sentence to be imposed under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST
(POA) Act, 1989, so the sentence also does not call for interference, hence,
sentence is also affirmed.
14. According to the report of Jail Superintendent, Satna, the
appellant/accused has undergone the jail period of sentence, hence, this appeal
is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
DPS
