Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
G.S. Ahluwalia and Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
Moolchand – Appellant
versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
Cr.A.No.443 of 2010
Decided on 6.12.2021
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(f) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374 – Rape of girl child – Life sentence – Victim aged one year – If evidence of prosecutrix is found to be reliable, then asking for corroboration, is nothing but adding a pinch of salt to her injuries – There is nothing on record to suggest that F.I.R. was antedated or ante timed – Prosecution case corroborated by medical evidence – Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that parents of prosecutrix had some vested interest to falsely implicate appellant, even by putting pride of their family and future of their one year old daughter at stake – All signs of injuries were suggestive of rape – Appellant is guilty of committing rape on a one year old prosecutrix – His conviction under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC affirmed – Such incidents are to be dealt with all seriousness – Sentence of Life Imprisonment upheld. (Paras 33, 35, 36, 40, 46, 47 and 48)
(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Evidence of a witness cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he is “related witness” – There is a difference between “related witness” and “interested witness” – It is true that evidence of a “related witness” should be appreciated more carefully, but at the same time, why a “related witness” would spare real culprit in order to falsely implicate accused – An “interested witness” means who derives some advantage by falsely implicating the accused. (Paras 40 and 44)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Ahluwalia J.—This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 13-5-2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, Distt. Datia in Sessions Trial No. 46/2009 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default imprisonment of R.I. for one year.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 11-10-2008, the complainant lodged an F.I.R. that at about 3:30 P.M., he was in the house. His wife was working outside the house whereas the prosecutrix, aged about 1 year was playing on the platform. The appellant came there and took the prosecutrix to his house. After about half an hour, he brought back the prosecutrix and left her on the platform. The prosecutrix was crying and accordingly she was lifted by his wife, and found that her underwear was stained with blood. After removing her underwear, his wife found that blood was oozing out from her private part. At that time, Siyasharan came and informed that he was passing by the house of the appellant and heard the cries of a child and accordingly he went inside the house of the appellant, and found that the appellant was committing rape on the prosecutrix. After noticing Siyasharan, the appellant picked up the prosecutrix and left her on the platform. Accordingly, it was alleged that the appellant has committed rape on a one year old prosecutrix.
3. Accordingly, the police registered the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. Her underwear was seized. One shirt of skyblue colour was also seized from the possession of the appellant. The nail clippings of the appellant were seized. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The seized articles were sent for Forensic examination. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet for offence under Section 376, 511 of IPC.
4. The Trial Court by order dated 2-5-2009, framed charges under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC.
5. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.
6. The prosecution examined “A” father of prosecutrix (P.W.1), “B”, mother of prosecutrix (P.W.2), Ramendra Singh (P.W.3), Siyasharan (P.W.4), Maniram (P.W.5), Badriprasad (P.W. 6), Dr. Sulbha Laghate (P.W.7), and Sunkesh Tripathi (P.W. 8).
7. The appellant examined Kalyan Singh (D.W.1) and Hari Singh (D.W.2) in his favor.
8. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment and sentence, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence mentioned above.
9. Challenging the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the report of Forensic Laboratory has not been produced. The prosecution case is based on the evidence of related and interested witnesses. The use of words “Bura Kaam” doesnot mean that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape. The appellant has been falsely implicated and the Court below has not appreciated the defence evidence in proper perspective.
10. Per contra, the Counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the Court below.
11. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
12. Dr. Sulbha Laghate (P.W.7) had medically examined the one year old prosecutrix and found the following injuries:
No external injury visible on any part of body.
Secondary Sex character are not developed.
No injury visible over outer side of vulva II perineum (Illegible) at 6 O Clock of vagina, bleeding from wound present. Hymen torn at 6 O Clock position. P/V not possible because of her age. Two slides prepared from tear side. Sealed and handed over to Police Constable No. 13 along with brown colured underwear of having some doubtful stains. In my opinion, all signs are suggestive of rape has been committed on girl.
13. The MLC is Ex. P.8. This witness was cross-examined. In cross-examination, She stated that
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
