Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. L. JAIN
LAKHANLAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Cri. A. 907 Of 2001
Decided On : 01/16/2004
Kidnapping - Prosecutrix's Age - Sections 376(1), 366, 506 of Indian Penal Code - The court discussed the evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix, her conduct, and the lack of reliable evidence for kidnapping or abduction. The court found the prosecutrix to be above 18 years of age and a willing party, leading to the acquittal of the appellant for the charges under Sections 366, 376, and 506 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix was allegedly abducted and subjected to sexual assault by the appellant. However, the evidence regarding the prosecutrix's age, conduct, and lack of reliable evidence for kidnapping or abduction led to the acquittal of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the prosecutrix unreliable, established her age to be above 18 years, and concluded that she was a willing party, leading to the acquittal of the appellant for the charges.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the age of the prosecutrix, her conduct, and the evidence for kidnapping or abduction, which influenced the court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unreliability of the prosecutrix's evidence, the establishment of her age to be above 18 years, and the lack of satisfactory evidence for kidnapping or abduction.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentences of the appellant were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by appellant Lakhan Lai challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 15-5-2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (1), 366 and 506, Part II of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,000. 00, R. I. for five years with fine of Rs. 300. 00 and R. I. for one year with fine of Rs. 100. 00, respectively. All the above sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.
( 2 ) THE prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that in the intervening night of 7th and 8th April, 2000 prosecutrix Swati was sleeping in her house. Her parents and siblings were also sleeping in the house. At about 3 a. m. appellant armed with an axe entered the house of prosecutrix. He collected her wearing apparels and caught hold of her hand and took her with him. He gave threat to the prosecutrix that if she will shout, she will be done to death. He took her from village Kuntha to village Jamthi on foot. From village Jamthi they boarded in a truck and reached Deshgaon. Appellant went on giving threats to the prosecutrix. From Deshgaon appellant took Swati in a truck to Khargaon where he talked to his wife Tara Bai alias Guddi and informed her that he will marry Swati. On the same day in the evening the appellant took Swati to Kasrawad and at Kasrawad he kept Swati at his Mausa's house for about 8 days and committed rape on her. Thereafter, the appellant took Swati front Kasrawad to Theebgaon where he kept the prosecutrix at the house of his sister. The appellant committed rape on prosecutrix several times. Thereafter he took the prosecutrix from Theebgaon to Khargaon and kept in a hut outside the township for about 8 days. Here also appellant committed rape on prosecutrix several times.
( 3 ) MEANWHILE, father of the prosecutrix Champa Lai (PW-4) lodged report at Police Station Piplod, to the effect that his daughter is not traceable at Theebgaon.
( 4 ) WHEN Swati saw Devram, father-in-law of the appellant at Khargon she requested him to inform her father regarding her whereabouts. Devram (PW-5) went to Kumtha and informed parents of the prosecutrix regarding the presence of prosecutrix at Khargon. When father of the prosecutrix Champa Lal in the company of Devram reached Khargon, he found Swati living with the appellant. On seeing Champalal, the appellant ran away. Champalal brought the prosecutrix with him and produced her at police station, Piplod, crime was registered at police station, Piplod, on 1-5-2000 as per Ex. P-9.
( 5 ) PROSECUTRIX was medically examined by Dr. Smt. Abha Jain (PW-1), who did not find any injury mark on the person of the prosecutrix. She reported that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape on the prosecutrix. Lady doctor collected vaginal smears, recovered light green petticoat from the person of the prosecutrix and cut her pubic hair which were packed and sealed and the packet was handed over to the concerned constable. Ex. P-2 is the report of Dr. Smt. Abha Jain. Dr. B. K. Maheshwari (P-7) after ossification test opined that the age of the prosecutrix may be between 15 to 16 years. Ex. P-8 is the report of Dr. Maheshwari.
( 6 ) ON completion of investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (1) and 506 (Part II), I. P. C. , charges for which were framed against the appellant who abjured the guilt.
( 7 ) ON the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home the guilt against the appellant and convicted and sentenced him, as indicated above.
( 8 ) I have heard Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ku. Mamta Billore, Panel lawyer for the State and gone through the record of the case.
( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction recorded by
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
