Laxmi Bai & Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12174 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Laxmi Bai & Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2024

                                                         1
                          IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                  BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
                                                ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2024
                                          CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2915 of 2000

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    LAXMI BAI W/O- SHRI AWADH NARAYAN
                               GURJAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS VILLAGE
                               MUDHLACHAWAL PS   BEGUMGANJ   DISTT.
                               RAISEN   (MADHYA  PRADESH)  (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         2.    AWADH NARAYAN GURJAR S/O AJMER SINGH
                               GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, VILLAGE
                               MUDHLACHAWAL PS     BEGUMGANJ  DISTT.
                               RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....APPELLANTS
                         (BY SHRI ABHINAV DUBEY- ADVOCATE )

                         AND
                         THE  STATE      OF    MADHYA        PRADESH (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY MS SEEMA SAHU - PANEL LAWYER )

                               Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                         following:
                                                        JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj District Raisen in ST No. 116/2000 dated 09-12- 2000 by which appellant No.1-Laxmi Bai has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 363 of IPC and appellant No.2- Awadh Narayan has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of

IPC and sentenced to six months RI and RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case before the trial Court in nutshell was that on 01- 06-2000, the appellants have convened 'Kanya Bhoj' in their home including the victim all other girls also came there. After the lunch was completed, the appellant No. 1 asked the victim to accompany her to Barry temple. The appellant No. 2 also reached there. At that time the complainant brother reached there to fetch the victim to her home but the appellants boarded the victim in a jeep of Veernarayan and brought the victim at a bank of river where the appellant-Laxmi Bai caught hold of her hand and the appellant/accused-

Veernarayan committed rape upon her. Veernarayan also paid Rs. 500/- to Appellant No.1. The Appellant No.1 threatened the victim that if she discloses incident to any other person, they will kill her. Victim returned to her home and narrated the incident to her mother and with the family members lodged an FIR on 02-06-2000 at 2:30 AM at Police Station Begumganj where the police registered Crime No. 82/2000 under Sections 363, 376, 372, 120 and 506 of IPC against the accused persons.

3. After investigation the case was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begumganj from where on committal the case was assigned to the Sessions Court.

4. The learned Trial Judge has framed the charges against acquitted appellant-Veernarayan under Sections 376 of IPC and appellant No.2- Awadh Narayan under Sections 372 and 120-B of IPC and against appellant No.1- Laxmi Bai under Sections 363, 372 , 506 and 120-B of IPC.

5. The appellants abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.

6. The trial Court recorded the evidence of prosecution witnesses and examined the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the appellants/accused have not examined any witness on their behalf.

7. The trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted the co-accused Veernarayan for the offence under Sections 376 of IPC and acquitted the appellant No.2- Awadh Narayan for the offence punishable under Sections 372 of IPC and acquitted the appellant No. 1-Laxmi Bai under Section 372 and 506 of IPC but, convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 120-B of IPC as stated above.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that in this case the victim has lodged FIR by name against the person who has committed rape upon her but, in the trial Court she has not supported the prosecution case against that person and the trial Court has also concluded that no rape was committed over the victim. On the same facts upon three accused persons, one has been acquitted. Prosecution failed to prove that rape was committed on the victim hence, on the same set of facts, the appellants cannot be convicted for kidnapping the victim from home to the place of incident. As no incident has been proved for which the victim was kidnapped. Thus, the trial Court on pick and choose basis has convicted the appellants.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants Shri Abhinav Dubey has further

submitted that no witness has been examined to prove the age of the victim and no other witness except the family members of the victim has supported the prosecution case hence, the prosecution witnesses are not reliable and the conviction cannot be maintained on that basis.

10. Learned counsel for the State Ms. Seema Sahu, Panel Lawyer has

submitted that the appellants have been acquitted of the charges that were not

proved against them. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was kidnapped for the illicit purpose and this act was done in furtherance of conspiracy of the appellants. Thus, judgment of the trial Court cannot be interferred.

11. I have gone through the record.

12. In this case, the FIR has much importance and it is alleged in the FIR that in the vehicle Veernarayan resident of Chandwar was sitting. She was knowing the person as he was visiting to her village and the appellants make her boarded in the jeep and when they were seated in the jeep, Veernarayan driving the jeep went at the bank of river and behind the bushes Laxmi Bai thrown her on the ground and caught hold of her mouth and Veernarayan committed rape upon her.

13. In this scenario it was but natural that the victim had suffered injuries but, the prosecution has not examined the witness who examined the victim and victim (PW-1) and in her statement she has never stated that she got any injury over the body.

14. As stated above, the prosecution case against the appellant was that they forcibly boarded the victim on jeep of acquitted co-accused and the acquitted co-accused committed rape and she was well acquainted with the person who committed rape but, in the court statement she states that a fatty and dark complexion person committed rape upon her. The trial Court in its judgment has concluded that no rape was committed on the victim. Thus, the basic object for which it is alleged that the appellants kidnapped the girl is not proved. Thus, there is no objective behind kidnapping.

15. As per FIR, two persons Kundanlal and Motilal, saw the persons

who was driving the vehicle/jeep and committed rape upon her but, on that point Kundanlal (PW-4), Lal Sahab (PW-6) and Moti Singh (PW-7) has not supported the prosecution case and Lal Sahab (PW-6) clearly stated that he did not saw any jeep.

16. It is also mentioned in FSL report ( Ex.P/10), no semen was found on the undergarment of the victim and as stated no injury was found over the body of the victim and the victim has changed the story and replaced the person who committed rape upon her was a short heighted dark complexion person. Looking to all the facts above, the victim (PW-1) is not fully reliable witness. Furthermore, from the statements of Hira Bai (PW-2), Kumari Maya (PW-3), Kumari Jyoti (PW-5), it is proved that on the date of incident, the appellant No.1 called the girls for 'Kanya Bhoj' in her home and from the statement it is clear that after 'Kanya Bhoj' they went to a temple to offer Prasad to deity at village Barry.

17. On the point, Hira Bai (PW-2),mother of victim has stated that her daughter went to appellant's home for 'Kanya Bhoj' and after 15-20 minutes the appellant No.1-Laxmi Bai came her home and told her that she is carrying her daughter to the temple. Thus, by seeking permission from her mother, the victim was carried to the temple. Thus, from home she without the permission of the guardian carried the girl to the temple is also not proved and it is proved that no one has committed rape upon the victim and no independent witness has examined that any offence was committed with the girl cannot be assumed.

18. From the above discussion, the victim (PW-1) is not fully reliable witness and her statements are not supported with medical evidence nor by the forensic expert and on the same facts, she has given clean-chit against whom it was alleged that he committed rape. In these circumstances, where the trial

Court has concluded that no rape was committed upon the victim. It is not proved that the appellants have hatched criminal conspiracy and the appellant Awadh Narayan has not been charged with the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC.

19. Thus, the conviction of the appellants under Section 120-B of IPC and the appellant No. 1- Laxmi Bai under Section 363 of IPC cannot be maintained.

20. Hence, appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 120-B and 363 of IPC are quashed. As a result thereof, the sentence imposed upon them are quashed. The fine amount deposited by the appellant No.1 be refunded to her. The seized article be destroyed being worthless.

21. With the copy of judgment, record of the trial Court be returned back.

(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE PG