Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivram Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5424
1 CRA-5695-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 30th OF JANUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5695 of 2020
SHIVRAM SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Surya Kumar Patel - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard finally at
motion hearing stage.
This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by
the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 09.10.2020 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Panna District
Panna in S.T. No.34 of 2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(J)(L) of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years with fine
amount of Rs.10,000/- and under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of amount of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
2. Prosecution case before the trial Court was that the victim was
mentally challenged. She was married in Billraka village. First time when
victim went to her matrimonial house, her husband had left her and she was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5424
2 CRA-5695-2020
residing with her brother and sister-in-law. On the date of incident,
29.01.2018, the victim went to take bath at Ken River. The complainant, her
sister-in-law was grazing her goats at 11:00 pm. The victim came crying and
stated to the complainant that the appellant had violated her privacy and on
that basis written FIR was lodged before police station Ajaygarh, on the
Crime No.0035/2018 was registered under Section 354 of IPC. Victim was
medically examined and spot map was prepared. During investigation, the
offence under Section 376 of IPC was added. The appellant and victim were
medically examined. The vaginal slide, pubic hair and the saree of the victim
and the semen slide of the appellant was sent for FSL examination. The
statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and after
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Ajaygarh and from commitment, the case was sent to Sessions Judge,
Panna and on transfer, the case was submitted before the trial Court for trial.
3. The trial Court framed the charges under Sections 354, 376(2)(J)(L)
of the IPC. The appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.
4. The prosecution examined the witnesses in which the victim being
mentally challenged, her statement were recorded with the help of her sister-
in-law (PW-2) and one specialist Megha Baghora. After examination, the
prosecuting witnesses, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. appellant has taken the defence that he has been falsely implicated in
the case due to politically enmity, he has not committed any offence but the
appellant has not examined any defence witness.
5. The trial Court after hearing the parties has convicted and passed the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5424
3 CRA-5695-2020
sentence as stated above. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court
has wrongly convicted the appellant as the victim herself has not stated that
the appellant has violated her privacy and her sister-in-law (PW-2) is also
hostile. In the same way, her brother (PW-3) has also not supported the
prosecution case. In the medical examination, no injury were found in the
person of the victim even in the private part of the victim. Thus, the trial
Court has convicted the appellant conjectures and surmises that cannot be
sustained.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
written FIR was lodged and in that nowhere it is stated that the appellant has
violated privacy of victim and it is only mentioned, with the malafide
intention, the appellant carried the victim towards nullah and regarding
violation of privacy, nothing has been mentioned in FIR. Thus, the appellant
was falsely charged under Sections 354 and 376 of IPC. No witness has
supported the prosecution case. Hence, the appeal be allowed and appellant
be acquitted from the charges.
8. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the appellant is the
resident of the rural area and due to hesitation and the victim being mentally
challenged has not fully disclosed the story and after she get composed, she
had narrated the whole story and on that basis, the offence was enhanced and
in the statement before the Court, she has supported the prosecution case.
Hence, no interference is called for. Hence, appeal be dismissed.
9. I have heard the parties and gone through the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5424
4 CRA-5695-2020
10. The Victim (PW-1) though examined through the expert of sign
language and her sister-in-law (PW-2) has stated that she is acquainted with
the appellant and she has disclosed her name, her husband's name, village
and identified the appellant. When the question was put, what the appellant
has done with her? She lift her saree and indicated and when the direct
question was put to the victim, she has stated that the appellant dragging her
carried towards nullah and she is indicating towards her private parts and on
that the sign language expert and her sister-in-law has stated that the offence
was committed regarding the private part and after that there appears to be
some confusion in the statement and her sister-in-law (PW-2) was also cross-
examined regarding the answers given by the victim that she has herself
stated the answers and this fact has been denied by the witness (PW-2).
11. Thus, on the material point that the appellant dragged the victim
where she went to take bath in the Ken River and when she was taking bath
no one was present there. Appellant caught hold the victim and dragged her
towards nullah and after lifting her undergarments has committed something,
involving her private parts. Thus, it can be inferred that the appellant has
violated her privacy.
12. The witness No.2 her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) has stated that the
victim is her sister-in-law (Nanad) she is acquainted with the appellant. She
is resident of village Mohana. The victim was married in village Bilraka but
she was not mentally fit hence her husband had deserted her. On the date of
incident, victim (PW-1) went to take bath and she was grazing her goats. She
is well versed with the signals of the victim. She also speak and she never
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5424
5 CRA-5695-2020
make quarrel with any person. She make paly the children and also helps in
domestic works. The witness has stated that on narration of the victim, she
went to police station Ajaygarh and lodged the FIR, the victim has told her
that the appellant dragged her towards nullah near Ken River and knocked
down her and victim has also told that the appellant sit over her and
committed intercourse with her and on the basis of the statement of victim
(PW-1) she lodged the FIR exhibit P-1.
13. In the cross-examination, there are little bit contradictions in the
statement of this witness. Somewhere she said that she along with the victim
went to take bath, somewhere she said that after bath she was grazing the
goats and the victim came and informed her that the appellant has violated
her privacy but in para 9 she has clearly stated that the victim has told her the
incident. But on the material point, her statement are supported by the PW-1
by this witness.
14. Witness PW-3 brother of the victim has not supported the
prosecution case.
15. Doctor Smriti Gupta (PW-6) has examined the victim on
30.01.2018, on the next day of the incident and this witness has stated that
she was not mentally fit she was able to take only her name but she was fully
conscious. Her secondary sex characters were well developed there was no
injury on the body hymen was old ruptured. No injury was found in the
private part. Pregnancy test was conducted that was negative. She collected
the brown color saree to vaginal smear slide and the pubic hair and handed
over to concerned police constable. She has submitted the report Ex.P-14.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5424
6 CRA-5695-2020
16. On the report firstly report under Section 154 of IPC was
registered. S.D. Singh (S.I.) has clearly stated that on 29.01.2018, on the
written complaint Ex.P-1, she registered crime No.35/2018 under Section
354 of IPC i.e. Ex.P-3, he prepared the spot map. After obtaining the
permission of the family members and Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue
Ajaygarh, she sent the victim for medical examination. The appellant was
medically examined. After medical examination, he obtained the vaginal
slide, pubic hair and the saree from the hospital and the appellant's semen
slide and after preparing the FSL draft through S.P. sent the ceased article for
FSL sent to FSL Sagar for examination. FSL report Ex.P-10 on the detailed
cross-examination, the witness has stated that the victim being not mentally
fit, the FIR was not lodged regarding the violation of the privacy and after
that this fact came to his knowledge, he has investigated the offence
punishable under Section 376 of IPC and the question was raised regarding
the receipt of FSL P-9 that was pertaining to the crime No.228/2017 that was
under Sections 223, 294, 326, 506 and 307/34 of IPC. But no substantial
contradiction has been found regarding the FSL report.
17. As per the FSL report, Ex.P-10 in the vaginal slide of the victim,
male sperm was found. As per the FSL report, this report pertains to the
offence crime No.35/2018 of police station Ajaygarh, District Panna and
there is clear name of the victim where the slide, pubic hair article A, B and
C are mentioned and the name of the appellant is mentioned and there is no
reason to doubt on the FSL report.
18. Thus, in this case, it is clear that the victim was of a woman of 58
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5424
7 CRA-5695-2020
years of age but she was married and it is clear from the statement of her
sister-in-law (PW-2) that she was married but she only once visited the house
of her husband and after that due to mental retardation of the victim, her
husband had deserted her and there is no suggestion that victim's husband
was in her contact and in her vaginal slide, sperm is found and it is never
suggested that the victim was of the bad character or she was having the
relations with other persons also and no suggestion has been given to this
regard. This fact stated in FSL report further supports the prosecution case.
19. It is also clear that the appellant has raised the point that the FIR
was lodged on instance of the village Pradhan of his village but the defence
has not examined any witness to demonstrate that there was any enmity
between the appellant and the village pradhan and a woman of 58 years who
is mentally retarded and is residing with her brother and sister-in-law. As no
one is there to take care of her. Her reputation also matters and without any
fact brought on record, it cannot be said that easily any woman shall level the
false charges against any person and that of a person who is of 25-26 years.
20. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction
of the appellant is affirmed under Section 376(2)(5)(L) and Section 354 of
IPC. On the point of sentence considered, the trial Court has inflicted the
minimum sentence for the offence and both the sentence were ordered to be
run concurrently. Hence, no scope is left for interfering in the sentence.
Hence, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.
21. The case property be disposed of as per the order of the trial Court.
22. With the copy of the judgment, the record of the trial Court be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5424
8 CRA-5695-2020
returned back.
23. The copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned jail authority to
inform the appellant.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
AT
