Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhanwarlal vs The State Of M.P. on 8 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
1 CRA-464-2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 8th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 464 of 2000
BHANWARLAL
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri J.B Mehta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Joshi -G.A for the respondent/State.
With consent, heard finally.
Reserved on 17.07.2025
Delivered on 08.10.2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973
is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.03.2000 in
Sessions Case No.53/99 by Additional Sessions Judge, Narisingarh,
District Rajgarh (Biaora), whereby the appellant/accused has been
convicted under Section 376(1) of the IPC and has been sentenced to
07 years R.I and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of 01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
2 CRA-464-2000
month Additional R.I.
2. Facts in brief are that appellant/accused was put to trial
for charge under Section 376(1) of the IPC for committing rape with
victim (PW-1) at 3:00 pm on 01.02.99 regarding which a Crime
No.12/99 was registered at Police Station Karanwas, District Rajgarh
at 10:30 pm on 02.02.1999.
3. Case of the prosecution is that prosecutrix (PW-1) was in
her fields for taking fodder for cattle on 01.02.1999 at 3:00 pm.
Appellant reached there and caught hold the prosecutrix (PW-1) and
all attempts to free from the clutches of the appellant fails as
appellant assaulted by legs and gagged her mouth by towel and
caught her both hands and committed rape. Victim (PW-1) intimated
the incident to village Chowkidar Bhawarlal (PW-6) and his wife
Rukimibai (Pw-3) who was digging soil near the place of incident.
Victim (PW-1) returned to home and intimated the incident to her
brother-in-law (Jheth) and sister-in-law (Jethani), brother-in-law
(Devar) and sister-in-law (Devrani) and thereafter she told the
incident to husband also.
4. On 02.02.1999 she lodged a First Information Report at
Police Station Karanwas, Rajgarh where Crime No.12/99 was
registered against the appellant/accused. During investigation, the
statements were recorded. Victim was medically examined. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
3 CRA-464-2000
final report was submitted to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh and vide order dated
19.04.1999 the case was committed to the Court of Session.
5. Appellant/accused abjured the guilt and claimed for trial.
6. To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined the
prosecutrix as PW-1, village Chowkidar Bhawarlal as PW-6,
Rukmibai wife of Chowkidar as Pw-3, sister-in-law (Jethani) as PW-
2, Medical Officer Dr. Shashi Gupta as PW-4, Medical Officer Dr.
V.K. Gupta as PW-5, Assistant Sub-Inspector MK Pancholi as PW-7
and Police Inspector B.S Barila as PW-8.
7. In cross-examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
1973, appellant/accused admitted the fact that prosecutrix (PW-1)
was taking fodder for cattle at the well in his fields on 01.02.1999 at
3:00 pm and Chowkidar Bhawarlal (PW-6) and his wife Rukmibai
(PW-3) were digging soil from the 'Nalla'. Rest of the facts were
either denied or ignorance was expressed and advanced the defence
that on the date of incident he was carrying husk of the crop to
Chandarsingh Patel with Norang bai and he went to the 'Nalla' to
throw the husk where the bricks were being manufactured. After
drawing the crop husk, he went to the well to take water alongwith
Norang bai. One Gopiji was also 20 steps ahead from appellant and
Norang bai was 20 steps behind him and thereafter he went to drop
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
4 CRA-464-2000
the bullock carts. At that time one side of 'Nalla' bricks were being
manufactured and on the other side of 'Nalla' Chowkidar was digging
soil and Gopiji was preparing bricks. He has not committed any
offence. He examined Gopilal as DW-1 in his defence stating that
Norang bai has died.
8. Appreciating the defence witness, trial Court found
proved the testimony of victim (PW-1) from testimony of PW-6
Mangilal and Rukmibai (PW-3) and FSL report Ex.P/7 and
convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 01 of the
judgment.
9. Challenging the conviction and sentence, this appeal
has been preferred on the ground:
(i) that prosecution story is most unnatural and fully
based on improvements made from time to time.
(ii) that the trial Court committed error in convicting the
appellant.
(iii) that the trial Court committed error in not taking into
consideration various contradictions in the statement of prosecution
witnesses.
(iv) that the trial Court further committed error in not
believing the defence version on flimzy grounds not tenable in law.
(v) that the findings of trial Court are perverse and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
5 CRA-464-2000
contrary to law and evidence on record.
(vi) there is no evidence of rape having been committed by
the appellant with the prosecutrix. PW-3 & PW-6 have not stated
regarding commission of rape by appellant with prosecutrix.
(vii) that the trial Court committed error in law in not
drawing adverse inference against the prosecution for non-
production of Ramlal to whom she narrated the alleged incident.
(viii) that the trial Court committed error in holding that
appellant committed the alleged offence despite the fact that she told
to PW-3 & PW-6 that appellant only caught hold her.
Heard. Perused the record.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has supported
the conviction as well as sentence and submitted that no case for
interference is mad out and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11. The question that emerges for consideration is whether
the testimony of prosecutrix (PW/1) inspires confidence of this
Court enabling conviction of the appellant or whether there is a
manifest error in the conclusion of the trial, leading to miscarriage of
justice.
12. This being a case of sexual assault, there is no eye
witness to the incident, all that this Court can rely on is the evidence
of the victim, which, therefore, has to qualify as being of "sterling
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
6 CRA-464-2000
quality" for which purpose it is to be weighed and assessed by the
Court. In Ganesan vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police -
(2020) 10 SCC 573, the Apex Court held that the sole testimony of
the victim, if found reliable and trustworthy, requires no
corroboration and may be sufficient to invite conviction of the
appellant/accused.
13. A witness whose testimony is so cogent, consistent and
inherently credible that it needs no corroboration may be termed as
sterling quality. Now the question arises whether the testimony of
victim (PW/1) qualify the standard of sterling quality. Counsel for
the appellant/accused has pointed out the following infirmities in the
testimony of prosecutrix (PW/1) as well as in the prosecution case:
(i) Prosecutrix (PW/1) herself admitted in cross examination
that the place of incident was approximately 50 steps away from the
location where independent witnesses PW/3 & PW/6 were present.
Despite being so close, neither of them witnesses any such incident,
thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution story.
(ii) There existed a significant delay in reporting the
incident. Although the incident is alleged to have occurred at around
3.00 p.m of 01.02.1999, prosecutrix informed her family only in the
evening and lodged the FIR the next morning i.e. at 10.30 a.m of
02.02.1999, without offering any convincing explanation. The delay
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
7 CRA-464-2000
remains unexplained and raises a presumption against the credibility
of the prosecution case.
(iii) The conduct of the prosecutrix post-incident is
unnatural. She states that after the alleged occurrence, she informed
the village chowkidar (PW/3) and then returned to the field to cut
grass. This behaviour does not align with the natural reaction of a
woman who has faced such a serious offence and further weakens
the reliability of her statement.
(iv) The medical examination report by Dr.Shashi Gupta
(PW/4) clearly states that there were no external injuries or marks of
force on the prosecutrix's person. No clear opinion confirming the
sexual assault and the absence of any injuries further dilutes the
prosecution's case.
(v) Although the petticoat worn by the prosecutrix was
seized and sent for FSL examination, however, there is no forensic
link established between the appellant and the recovered articles
making the report inconclusive and ineffective in establishing guilt.
(vi) The trial court has failed to consider the contradiction in
the statements of the prosecution witnesses. While PW/1 stated that
appellant "Use Bhanwariya Ne Pakad Liya", PW/3 deposed that
"Bhanwariya Usase Jhum Gaya Tha", showing inconsistency in how
the incident was described.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
8 CRA-464-2000
(vii) The trial court committed grave error in discarding the
defence of false implication. The absence of any signs of struggle,
resistence, injury or immediate disclosure of rape to any witness
suggests at best a case of misunderstanding or worse false
implication.
(viii) The prosecutrix has never stated about the appellant
committing rape, neither in her examination in chief nor in her cross
examination. Her words were limited to phrase like "pakad liya",
"jhum gaya tha" which does not convey the allegation of rape or
sexual assault.
(ix) The defence version has been supported by Gopilal
(PW/8), who stated that the appellant was working the entire day
near the prosecutrix's field along with his wife (PW/8). His
testimony goes unrebutted and indicates the possibility of false
implication due to prior disputes or enmity. The trial court erred in
not drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution for non
production of Ramlal to whom she narrated the alleged incident.
(x) Trial court has committed grave error in holding that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The
absence of any direct eye witness, medical evidence, independent
corroboration or consistent narrative makes the conviction
unsustainable in law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
9 CRA-464-2000
(xi) The trial court committed error in considering the
bonafide conduct of the appellant who voluntarily appeared at the
police station on 10.02.1999 which undermines the theory of his
absconding or guilt.
14. Appellant/accused has relied on Santosh Prasad alias
Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar - (2020) 3 SCC 443. Para-5.2 &
5.4.2 of the said judgment are being reproduced below:
5.2 From the impugned judgments and orders passed
by both the courts below, it appears that the appellant
has been convicted solely relying upon the
deposition of the prosecutrix (PW5). Neither any
independent witness nor even the medical evidence
supports the case of the prosecution. From the
deposition of PW1, it has come on record that there
was a land dispute going on between both the parties.
Even in the cross-examination even the PW5,
prosecutrix had admitted that she had an enmity with
Santosh (accused). The prosecutrix was called for
medical examination by Dr. Renu Singh â€" Medical
Officer and PW7 Dr. Renu Singh submitted injury
report. In the injury report, no sperm as well as RBC
and WBC were found. Dr. Renu Singh, PW7
Medical Officer in her deposition has specifically
opined and stated that she did not find any violence
marks on the body of the victim. She has also
categorically stated that there is no physical or
pathological evidence of rape. It is true that
thereafter she has stated that possibility of rape
cannot be ruled out (so stated in the examination-in-
chief). However, in the cross-examination, she has
stated that there was no physical or pathological
evidence of rape.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
10 CRA-464-2000
5.4.2 In the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra),
this Court had an occasion to consider who can be
said to be a sterling witness. In paragraph 22, it is
observed and held as under:
22 In our considered opinion, the sterling
witness should be of a very high quality and
calibre whose version should, therefore, be
unassailable. The court considering the version
of such witness should be in a position to accept
it for its face value without any hesitation. To
test the quality of such a witness, the status of
the witness would be immaterial and what
would be relevant is the truthfulness of the
statement made by such a witness. What would
be more relevant would be the consistency of
the statement right from the starting point till
the end, namely, at the time when the witness
makes the initial statement and ultimately
before the court. It should be natural and
consistent with the case of the prosecution qua
the accused. There should not be any
prevarication in the version of such a witness.
The witness should be in a position to withstand
the cross- examination of any length and
howsoever strenuous it may be and under no
circumstance should give room for any doubt as
to the factum of the occurrence, the persons
involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a
version should have co-relation with each and
every one of other supporting material such as
the recoveries made, the weapons used, the
manner of offence committed, the scientific
evidence and the expert opinion. The said
version should consistently match with the
version of every other witness. It can even be
stated that it should be akin to the test applied in
the case of circumstantial evidence where there
should not be any missing link in the chain of
circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
11 CRA-464-2000
offence alleged against him. Only if the version
of such a witness qualifies the above test as well
as all other such similar tests to be applied, can
it be held that such a witness can be called as a
sterling witness whose version can be accepted
by the court without any corroboration and
based on which the guilty can be punished. To
be more precise, the version of the said witness
on the core spectrum of the crime should
remain intact while all other attendant materials,
namely, oral, documentary and material objects
should match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the court trying
the offence to rely on the core version to sieve
the other supporting materials for holding the
offender guilty of the charge alleged
15. Now this Court is re-appreciating the prosecution
evidence especially the testimony of prosecutrix (PW/1) in the light
of objections raised by the appellant/accused.
16. The prosecutrix (PW/1) has elaborated the nature of the
act in para-1 of her evidence and she has described that that was a
Monday and at 03.00 p.m when she was fetching fodder from the
field near the well appellant/accused came there and assaulted her by
leg on her chest and tied her mouth by towel. Thereafter the
appellant/accused undressed her, sat on her and did the act with her
and thereafter cleaned the discharge on her clothes and ran away.
This elaborate version is self explanatory to describe the offence of
rape and the words used by her that "Use Bhanwariya Ne Pakad
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
12 CRA-464-2000
Liya" and "Bhanwariya Usase Jhum Gaya Tha" have to be
interpreted in the context in which she narrated the incident in para-1
and there is no other meaning to the acts explained by the victim
(PW/1) other than rape.
17. The cross examination of PW/1 expands in 8 paragraphs
i.e from para-5 to para-13. The cross examination regarding the
conduct of the prosecutrix after the incident is in para-8 and that
para-8 does not suggest that after intimation of the incident to
Chowkidar (PW/6) and his wife (PW/3), she returned to her field. It
only suggests that the victim (PW/1) went to her home and also
intimated the incident to one Ramlal, who met her on the way and
also intimated the incident to her sister-in-law and brother-in-law in
the evening. She also intimated the incident to her husband in the
evening when he returned from his labour work. Her Jeth and
Jethani also returned to home in the evening from the religious
preaching of Radhaswamy and went to the police station to lodge the
report in the next morning. The Police Inspector BS Bariba (PW/8)
lodged the First Information Report Ex.P/6 at 10.30 a.m of
02.02.1999 and the FIR Ex.P/6 discloses that the house of the victim
was 12 km. away from the police station. The above sequence of
incident and delayed availability of family members to escort her to
the police station are self explanatory regarding the time consumed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
13 CRA-464-2000
in lodging the FIR and it cannot be termed as lodged with delay.
18. The wife of Chowkidar (PW/3) and Chowkidar (PW/6)
have supported the prosecution regarding the conduct of the
prosecutrix after the incident to whom the victim narrated the
incident who were available to her at the first instance. There is
nothing in the cross examination of these two witnesses that the
place of incident was within their visibility. The fact that
appellant/accused was carrying dried broken straw and husk for
Gopilal (DW/1) on the date of incident does not establish that the
appellant/accused could not come to the place of incident and it was
improbable that he can commit the sexual assault with the victim. No
material has been brought on record that prosecutrix (PW/1) is in the
habit of making false complaints for extracting money. Norangbai
has not been examined in defence with whom the presence of
appellant/accused was suggested to prosecutrix (PW/1) in para-10
and 13. No enmity to falsely implicate the applicant/accused has
been brought on record. As per the FSL report Ex.P/7 sperm were
found on the petticoat (A/2) collected from the prosecutrix by
Dr.Sasi Gupta (PW/4) regarding which the victim has stated that the
appellant/accused cleaned his discharge on her clothes. The
statement of victim (PW/1) is consistent from the beginning to the
end. Her testimony is not contradictory or inconsistent with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29426
14 CRA-464-2000
other witnesses or FSL report Ex.P/7. Non examination of Ramlal or
absence of injury on the body of the victim does not impact the
quality of evidence of victim (PW/1) and the prosecution case is not
demolished on the strength of Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar
(supra). Accordingly, the testimony of PW/1 qualify the standard of
sterling quality and the trial court has rightly found her credible and
the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court under section
376(1) of the IPC are based on proper appreciation of evidence
which do not require interference in this appeal. The conviction of
the appellant/accused under section 376(1)of the IPC and the
sentence are hereby affirmed. Thus, this appeal being devoid of
merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
19. The appellant/accused is in jail since 06.07.2025. The
copy of the judgment be supplied to the appellant through the
concerned Superintendent of Jail.
20. The record be remitted back to the trial court for
information and compliance.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
hk/
