Back
2008(2) Crimes 12 (M.P.)
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.P. Shrivastava, J.
Jandel Singh —Appellant
versus
State of M.P. —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2000
Decided on 13.12.2007
For the Appellant:Shri R.S. Maurya with Shri Sameer Maurya, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Shri Mukund Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor.
IMPORTANT POINT
If the statement of prosecutrix is reliable and of sterling worth, then a conviction for the offence of rape can be sustained solely on her testimony without any corroboration.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 376—Appellant committed rape on prosecutrix when she was returning home at about 8p.m. near village well—Conviction and sentence of 7 years imprisonment awarded by trial court —Appeal—Report was lodged promptly and soon after incident she narrated incident to her parents—Appellant had put his hand on her mouth and after throwing her on ground she was over powered—If no resistance was offered, it did not amount that act was committed with her consent—Her evidence was corroborated by her parents and prompt report—Conviction could be sustained if evidence of prosecutrix was reliable—Conviction and sentence called for no interference. (Paras 14, 16, 18 and 19)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A.P. Shrivastava, J.—This appeal has preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence, 7.6.2000 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 220/96 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 3,000 with default stipulation.
2. In nutshell, the story of the prosecution is that on 27.5.96 at about 8 pm at village Hamirpura, prosecutrix (PW5) went to bring vegetable from her uncle Tunderam and while she was returning to home, on the way near the well, appellant met her, threw her on the ground and committed sexual intercourse with her. During the commission of act; one hand was put by the appellant on her mouth, therefore, she could not cry. After the incident, prosecutrix (PW5) came to her house and informed the incident to her father Banwari (PW1) and Jiji (mother) Bhagwan Devi (PW6). On the same night at about 11 p.m., she along with her parents went to the police station and lodged the report which is Ex. P7. Thereafter, she was sent for medical examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. After conclusion of trial, the appellant convicted and sentenced accordingly as stated in para one of this judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the conviction of the appellant on the ground that there is no eye-witness of the incident. Secondly, the age of the prosecutrix (PW5) is above 16 years and the prosecution has not proved that the act of sexual intercourse was done against her consent or will. It is further submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated, the material witness Tunderam was not examined and the incident took place in the dark night.
4. Prosecutrix examined as PW5. In her statement, she deposed that the incident took place in the night at about 8 p.m. at village Hamirpura. She had gone and left her after 15 minutes. When she returned to her house, she informed the incident to her Jiji (mother) Bhagwan Devi (PW6). Then, at about 10-11 in the night, she went to the police station along with her father and lodged the report at the police station which is Ex.P7. On the next day morning, she was examined by lady doctor.
5. Bhagwan Devi (PW6) corroborated the same version as narrated by the prosecutrix (PW5). She stated that her daughter (prosecutrix) informed that appellant committed sexual intercourse with her. Then, she went to the police station along with her daughter, her husband Banwari (PW1) and Chowkidar of the village for lodging the report.
6. Banwari (PW1) who is father of the prosecutrix, corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW5) and Bhagwan Devi (PW6). He affirmed that complainant (prosecutrix) informed him about the act committed by the appellant with her.
7. Asst. Sub-Inspector B.S. Yadav (PW7) also corroborated that the First Information Report (Ex. P 7) was written by him as informed by the prosecutrix (PW5) and Crime No. 34/96 was registered against the appellant accused at police station Mahua and on the next day, she was sent for medical examination.
8. Dr. Chandra (PW3) on 28.5.96 examined the prosecutrix (PW5).The report is Ex.P4. For confirmation doctor, there was no external or internal injury found on the person of the prosecutrix. According to doctor, her axillary and pubic hair were well developed, her hymen was ruptured. The undergarments and slides of vaginal, smear were prepared and then sent for chemical examination.
9. Dr. Yogendra Singh (PW2) on 28.5.96 conducted x-ray of the prosecutrix (PW5) for determining her age. As per report Ex. P1, her age was found to be 14 to 15 years. In his cross-examination, doctor admits that there may a difference of six months in the age of the prosecutrix on either side. Prosecutrix stated in her deposition sheet that her age is 19 years on the date of examination i.e
