Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunderlal vs The State Of M.P. on 30 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31464
1 CRA-416-1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 416 of 1999
SUNDERLAL
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Ms. Shanno Shagufta Khan, Advocate appointed as Amicus
Curiae.
Rahul Solanki G.A appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Reserved on 06.08.2025
Delivered on 30.10.2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is
preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.03.1999 in Sessions
Case No.142/1998 by First Additional Sessions Judge, District
Mandsaur M.P. 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.1,000/- with default stipulation of 06 months Additional R.I.
The amount of fine has been ordered to pay to the victim/prosecutrix
PW-2 as compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the victim/prosecutrix PW-2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31464
2 CRA-416-1999
alognwith her husband PW-5 and her sister-in-law PW-4 moved to
Narayangarh, District Mandsaur from their residence situated at Tehsil
Thandla, District Jhabua M.P. to earn their livelihood by labour work
and settled their temporary huts west side of Mundri Road and in front
of veterinary hospital at Narayangarh, District Mandsaur. On
07.03.1998, husband/PW-5 of the prosecutrix alongwith other fellow
labourers left their temporary huts to earn their livelihood. The
prosecutrix alongwith her sister-in-law remained in huts because they
could not get any labour work on that day. In the Noon on 07.03.1998,
the prosecutrix PW-2 and her sister-in-law PW-4 went to take bath on a
well. The prosecutrix PW-2 washed the clothes and only petticoats and
upper garments were on the body. Suddenly, the appellant/accused
appeared on that place and asked why they are taking both on that place,
he asked PW-4 to leave the place. PW-4 ran away from the spot. The
prosecutrix/PW-2 also collected her cloth and moved to return to their
huts. The appellant/accused offered her to go with him. The
prosecutrix/PW-2 tried to ran away from the spot but the
appellant/accused caught hold the waist of the prosecutrix and took the
prosecutrix forcibly in the filed of Rajika (Black Mustered) and laid her
on the soil, threatened her with knife and warned not to raise any alarm.
Thereafter, the appellant/accused committed penetrative sexual assault
and after completing the act, he put on his clothes and ran away from the
spot. The prosecutrix PW-2 returned to home weepingly. When her
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31464
3 CRA-416-1999
husband and neighbour returned to the huts then PW-2 narrated the
incident to her husband and also narrated the incident to her sister-in-law
PW-4 and they want to the police station Narayangarh alongwith the
fellow labourer and lodged a report at about 10:00 PM on 07.03.1998
where crime No.28/1998 was registered against the accused/appellant
under Section 294, 376 and 506 of IPC.
3. The prosecutrix/PW-2 was taken to the PHC, Narayangarh
where she was examined by Dr. Ila Patidar (PW-1) at 12:50 Noon on
08.03.1998. Samples alongwith the cloths of the prosecutrix were
collected and the same were sent for forensic laboratory, spot map was
prepared vide Ex.P/6 at 07:00AM on 08.03.1998, statements of the
victim/PW-2, her sister-in-law PW-4, husband PW-5 and neighbours
were recorded. The appellant/accused was arrested at 10:00AM on
11.03.1998. An ossification test of victim PW-2 was conducted and final
report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 was prepared disclosing
the offence of Section 376, 294 and 506 of IPC and submitted to the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narayangarh on 13.08.1998.
Regular Criminal Case No.372/1998 was registered and vide order dated
19.06.1998, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Mandsaur.
M.P.
4. The appellant/accused was put to trial for charges under Section
376 and 506-II of IPC.
5. Appellant/accused abjured the guilt and claimed for trial.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31464
4 CRA-416-1999
6. To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined the Dr. Ila
Patidar as PW-1, victim/prosecutrix as PW-2, Dr. P.N. Shrivastava as
PW-3, her sister-in-law as PW-4, her husband as PW-5, Head Constable
Mohanlal as PW-6, Radheshyam Patwari of Hali No.8, Narayangarh as
PW-7, Dr. P.K. Bhatnagar as PW-9 and Investigating Officer/ In-charge
of Police Station Narayangarh Anil Singh Thakur as PW-8.
7. In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 1973,
appellant/accused either denied or expressed his ignorance regarding all
the facts and circumstances appeared against him. He submitted that he
was arrested in a false case. The prosecutrix PW-2 was of 18 years of
age. He has committed no offence with the victim PW-2. All the
interested witnesses have deposed against him.
8. After appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court found
the victim PW-2 as reliable and found assurance to the testimony of the
victim PW-2 from the statement of her sister-in-law PW-4 and her
husband PW-5. the learned trial Court recorded the finding that the
victim/PW-2 was above the age of 16 years and further recorded the
finding that the appellant/accused has committed sexual intercourse with
the victim PW-2 and that sexual intercourse was without consent of the
victim/PW-2 and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in
para no.1 of the judgment.
9. The learned trial Court did not found prove the ingredients of
Section 506-II of IPC and acquitted the appellant/accused from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31464
5 CRA-416-1999
charges under Section 506-II of IPC.
10. Challenging the conviction as well as the sentence, this
Criminal appeal is preferred on the ground that trial Court did not
appreciate the medical evidence that did not disclose any external or
internal injuries on the body of the prosecutrix and the opinion of PW-1
that no definite opinion regarding rape could be given, accordingly, the
learned trial Court has committed error in relying upon PW-2 in absence
of corroborative medical evidence. The learned trial Court has further
committed error in holding that the offence is proved beyond reasonable
doubt without thorough appreciation and scrutiny of the prosecution
evidence. The learned trial Court has committed error in not taking into
consideration the various contradictions and omissions which rendered
the evidence of prosecutrix PW-2 and her husband PW-5 as well as her
sister-in-law PW-4 incredible and unworthy of reliance. The learned trial
Court did not appreciate the fact that the appellant as well as the
prosecutrix PW-2 are married and presence of semen on the
undergarments was quite natural. The report does not reveals that the
semen found on the cloth of victim PW-2 pertains to the
appellant/accused. Ultimately, it is not proved by the prosecution
evidence that the case is of sexual intercourse or without consent or
against the will of the prosecutrix. Hence, prays for setting aside the
impugned judgment.
11. Heard. Perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31464
6 CRA-416-1999
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 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.
15. 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/2) qualify the standard of sterling quality.
16. Counsel for the appellant/accused has pointed out the
following infirmities in the testimony of prosecutrix (PW/2) as well as in
the prosecution case:
(i) the prosecutrix PW-2 has changed the place of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31464
7 CRA-416-1999
taking bath from Khal to a pit resembling pond;
(ii) No sign or injury or impact of assault by stick is
found on the body of the victim PW-2.
(iii) the crushed rajika (black mustered) was not
collected during investigation;
(iv) PW-4 did not intimate to any one regarding the fact
that her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) has been caught hold by the
appellant/accused.
17. After referring to the above infirmities, counsel for the
appellant referred to Para no.11 of Omprakash vs. state of Haryana;
1999 Cri.LJ 94 (Punjab and Haryana High Court) and para no.10 of
Chirag Khan vs. State of Rajasthan; 1998 Cri.L.J. 3209 (Rajasthan High
Court) and argued that absence of injuries on the body of prosecutrix
doubted the credibility of evidence prosecutrix and place of incident and
conduct of the prosecutrix renders the prosecutrix as unreliable.
18. Now this Court is re-appreciating the prosecution evidence
especially the testimony of prosecutrix (PW/2) in the light of objections
raised by the appellant/accused.
19. The words, i.e. Chal, Khal and ponds are traditional recharge
sources of water. There is no substantial difference between them and it
depends what the local residents refer to that sources. The difference of
Khal or Pond does not affect the quality of testimony of prosecutrix PW-
2. At the time of incident, the age of sister-in-law/PW-4 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31464
8 CRA-416-1999
prosecutrix was only 12 years, she cannot be expected to respond like a
fully grown person.
20. In the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh vs. Manga
Singh (2019) 16 SCC 759 and Deepak Kumar Sahu vs. State of
Chatisgarh; 2025 INSC 929, Hon'ble Apex court has reiterated the
principle that it is well settled that in a case of rape, it is not necessary
that external injury is to be found on the body of the prosecutrix.
Accordingly, the lack of injury on victim's body is of no avail either in
determining the consent or in determining the commission of the sexual
assault. There is no reason to falsely implicate the accused/appellant by
the prosecutrix PW-2. The First Information Report has been lodged
immediately after her husband returned to the hut. When the victim/PW-
2 came from a different place then it was not expected that help of other
then the family members was available to the victim/PW-2. Cross-
examination of the victim/PW-2 is expanded in 09 paragraphs i.e. from
para no.06 to 14 and no reason to falsely implicate the appellant, could
be brought on record. The statement of the victim/PW-2 is consistent
from the beginning to end. Her testimony is not contradictory or
inconsistent with the statement of her sister-in-law/PW-4. Absence of
injury on the body of the victim does not impact the quality of her
evidence and the prosecution case is not demolished at the strength of
Omprakash (supra) and Chirag Khan (supra). Accordingly, the testimony
of PW/2 qualify the standard of sterling quality and the trial court has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31464
9 CRA-416-1999
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.
21. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused stands cancelled and
sureties stands discharged.
22. A copy of the judgment be supplied to the appellant/accused.
23. He be taken into custody immediately and be sent for
undergoing the remaining jail sentence.
24. Copy of this judgment alongwith the record be forwarded to
learned trial Court for necessary information and compliance.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
