Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rinku @ Ghanshyam Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21347
1 CRA-3320-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 5 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3320 of 2015
RINKU @ GHANSHYAM YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
None for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - Government Advocate for the State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Smt. Anuradha Shukla
Appellant is in custody in this case and an application
(I.A.No.27212/2024) is pending for seeking suspension of sentence and bail.
No one is present today to argue on that application but having considered
the fact that period of actual custody of appellant is more than 10 years and
this appeal is pending since 2015, we have heard the final arguments on
behalf of respondent-State.
2. Appellant has assailed, in this appeal, the judgment passed on
29.02.2015 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur in Special Case
No.20/2015 whereby he was convicted of the offence of Section 376(2)(i)
IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act but was sentenced only under Section
376(2)(i) IPC to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- with default
stipulation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21347
2 CRA-3320-2015
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 13.04.2015 minor
prosecutrix, aged less than 12 years, had gone to the house of her friend for
playing together; appellant came there at around 5:00 p.m.; he forcibly took
her towards "husk of paddy" (dhan ka paira); he forced her to lie down there
and tied her hands with a rope; he then disrobed the prosecutrix and also
himself and committed rape with her; on hearing the scream of prosecutrix,
mother of her friend arrived and started shouting; appellant fled away and the
prosecutrix returned to her house where she told her mother about the
incident. The FIR was made as late as on 13.04.2015, as prosecutrix was
under fear, and in the crime registered against appellant at Crime No.96/2015
at Police Station, Kotma, district Anuppur, investigation was undertaken.
After its conclusion, the charge-sheet was filed and in the trial appellant was
convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
4. In appeal memo the grounds raised are that the prosecution witnesses
have exaggerated their version in the trial Court; the evidence of prosecutrix
is highly suspicious in the light of animosity admitted by her during cross-
examination; there was a delay of ten days in reporting the matter to the
police but the trial Court did not take cognizance of this fact; there was no
DNA report to support the prosecution case, still appellant was held guilty.
On these grounds, a request was made to allow the appeal and acquit the
appellant.
5. State has opposed the appeal claiming that the testimony of prosecutrix
was stable and consistent both during investigation and even in trial; her age
is proved to be below 12 years through reliable evidence; the MLC report
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21347
3 CRA-3320-2015
does not indicate any contrary finding and in a rape case delay in lodging the
FIR is not of much significance. Therefore, it is requested that no indulgence
is warranted in this criminal appeal.
6. We have considered the submissions made here, the grounds raised in
appeal memo and the evidence available in the record of the trial Court.
7. The prosecution story suggests that the incident occurred on 03.04.2015
at around 5:00 p.m. in a place which lies between the house and the barn of a
friend of prosecutrix. Spot map (Exhibit-P/20) reveals the location of place
of incident as mark "B" is shown as a place where prosecutrix was playing
with her group of friends and properties shown by marks "D" and "E"
belonged to appellant.
8. In this case, the incident allegedly occurred on 3.4.2015 while the FIR
(Ex.P-19) was lodged on 13.4.2015. It is claimed that the reason of this delay
was the fear component. The narrative given in FIR itself does not reveal that
any threat was given by appellant to the prosecutrix either during the course
of commission of crime or even thereafter. It can also not be claimed in the
facts of the case that this fear was on account of ignominy that the
prosecutrix might have to face in case the matter was reported to the police.
Here, the FIR reveals that act of establishing physical relationship was very
much witnessed by the mother of friend of prosecutrix and on seeing this,
she shouted aloud. In this sequence of events, it cannot be successfully
argued that timely registration of FIR would have caused disgrace to
prosecutrix as a word of whisper would have already been around in the
village regarding this incident of ashaming the mankind.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21347
4 CRA-3320-2015
9. Incidentally, the factor of fear has apparently not worked here, as the
FIR reveals that the mother of prosecutrix had visited the house of appellant
after this incident. Though the reason of this visit is not disclosed, but it
appears that she would have gone there to express her resentment and anger
over the issue. A frightened person would not have dared to express this
feeling of fury or see eye-to-eye with the perpetrator of crime.
10. The discussion undertaken so far assist in reaching to the conclusion
that the delay of ten days in lodging the FIR is inexplicable in nature and the
suggested reason for this delay has no substratum. It cannot be ignored here
that this delay has rendered the task of collection of evidence cumbersome.
On account of lapse of time, it cannot be claimed that the place of incident
was intact and just as the same as it was at the time of incident for collection
of physical evidence. It can be ignored that it was an open place frequented
by many during the interregnum period of ten days. The MLC report reflects
that there was no external injury on the person of prosecutrix and her hymen
was old, ruptured and healed at multiple places. Had the matter been reported
earlier, better findings could have been observed during her medical
examination. An inference can, therefore, be drawn that the unexplained
delay in lodging the FIR has severely damaged the reliability of prosecution
case.
11. P.W.7 is the prosecutrix in this case and P.W.8 is her mother. Their
testimony reveals that prior to this incident, they had a quarrel with appellant
about taking water from the hand-pump, which was installed in front of the
house of prosecutrix. Mother (P.W.8) has admitted to the extent that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21347
5 CRA-3320-2015
regarding this incident of quarrel and assault, they had demanded money
from appellant, which he refused, therefore this report was lodged. She also
admits that she was advised by Sarpanch to lodge this report. The most
relevant piece of evidence in this regard is the testimony of father of
prosecutrix (P.W.4) who claims to have no knowledge about the incident of
rape allegedly committed by appellant with the daughter of this witness. He
has revealed in his cross-examination that the dispute was about taking water
at the hand-pump and when appellant started assaulting and threw the water-
pot aside, this report was lodged at the advise of Sarpanch. He has
categorically admitted that no rape was committed by appellant with the
prosecutrix.
12. Ku. Devki Yadav (P.W.1) and her mother Smt. Hiriya Bai (P.W.2) are
the other relevant witnesses examined by prosecution. It is claimed that
Devki was playing with prosecutrix just immediately before the incident took
place and her mother, who suddenly arrived on the place of incident, saw
while it was being committed. The statements of both these witnesses reveal
that they have not supported the prosecution story even to the least.
Therefore, there is no corroboration from any independent source about the
act allegedly committed by appellant.
13. Dr. Deepa Rani (P.W.3), who had medically examined the prosecutrix,
could not give any definite opinion about rape in her report and though FSL
report, marked as Ex.P-37, has shown positive result for presence of sperm
on the underwear of prosecutrix, but no further examination was undertaken
to detect the DNA profile of this piece of evidence. A report barely
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21347
6 CRA-3320-2015
suggesting that sperms were found present on the underwear of prosecutrix
would not itself prove the commission of offence of rape nor can it connect
the appellant with the said crime.
14. In view of arguments submitted and considered and also in the light of
evidence available on record of the trial Court, we are of considered opinion
that prosecution has not been able to establish its case through credible
testimony of witnesses and even the scientific evidence has not supported the
prosecution case. Further, the delay in lodging the FIR has embarrassed the
credibility and the probity. We accordingly hold that the impugned judgment
of conviction is not sustainable and, therefore, the appeal is allowed .
15. Appellant is consequently acquitted of the charge of Section 376(2)(i)
IPC. He is in custody. He shall be released forthwith, if his custody is not
required in any other case.
16. The fine amount deposited by the appellant, if any, be refunded to him.
The properties seized in the matter shall be disposed of in accordance with
the directions of trial Court.
17. Let a copy of this judgment along with its record be send to the trial
Court for information and necessary compliance.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ps/nitesh
