Back
2007(3) JLJ 87
S.K. Kulshreshtha and S.L. Kochar, JJ.
Bhurji and others v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2001 (Indore) : against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Jhabua, passed in Sessions Trial No.518 of 1998;
Decided on 15.2.2007.
On 22.9.1998 PW2 Dolorese, PW4 Roseline, PW5 Metilda and PW8 Teressa were lodging in Navapada-Bhandariya Convent Mission. In the night at 10:00 p.m. they all were sleeping. At that time call bell of the building rang upon which PW4 Roseline woke up and went up to the gate and saw that some people were chitchatting outside the building. PW2 Dolorese also went near PW4. She saw that the people standing outside were asking for medicine. They also heard the cry of a child. These witnesses saw that out of those people some had wrapped their shawls around their waist and some of them were in turban and they were having lathis, sticks, bow and arrows in their hands and were insisting to open the gate. On this, these two witnesses asked them to get a permission chit from father whereupon they stated that father was not available. Thereafter these witnesses asked those people to come with sister Boronika. After this a man started to break open the grile of the room. By that time these witnesses went up on the roof of the building and started blowing whistle, but none came to help them and the persons standing outside the building started pelting stones on the roof, whereupon Roseline and Dolorese came down in the room. PW5 Metilda along with PW8 Teressa went to the Prayer room and bolted the door from inside. Thereafter those people broke open the gate by means of hammer-type instrument and entered inside the building whereupon these witnesses asked those people to take away the articles which they desire and not to disturb them. One of the miscreants told that they would not cause any harm to them and only asked for the cash upon which the four witnesses opened the door. On opening the door about 8 to 10 miscreants entered inside the room out of whom five miscreants committed forcible sexual act with PW2, two persons attempted to commit rape on PW4, two other persons also committed rape forcibly on PW5 and four other miscreants committed forcible sexual intercourse with PW8 against their will and consent. These miscreants were identified by the four prosecutrix in the mercury tube light. The miscreants looted cash amount of Rs.22,000/-, tailoring machine, wrist watch, camera, typewriter and other domestic articles. [Para 3
Held : There is no material available on record go to show that the accused persons were determined to have sexual intercourse in all events with the prosecutrix PW4. She has specifically stated that her under-garments were not removed and the appellants were also wearing underwears. They had not exposed their genitals. According to the prosecutrix PW4, accused persons were having deadly weapons, but they did not cause any injury or even forced to the prosecutrix to surrender herself. (2004)4 see 379 followed. [Para 26
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.375 -- rape -- penetration is sine qua non for commission of offence -- no matter had little. (2004)4 see 379 followed. [Para 25
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.154 -- FIR not lodged by any of the prosecutrix -- person lodging had no knowledge of rape -- offence disclosed on arrival of police on spot -- FIR is not encyclopedia of incident – non-mention of rape is immaterial. [Para 41
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.376(2)(g) -- gang rape -- version of prosecutrix duly corroborated by forensic report -- offence proved. [Para 43
(5) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.9 -- victims of offence of rape -- had sufficient time and opportunity and also light to see the accused persons -- their faces imprinted in their mind -- non-disclosure of details of personality immaterial. 2003(2) JLJ 404 (SC) followed. [Paras 44 & 45
(6) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 376(2)(g) -- gang rape -- burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt is always on prosecution -- prosecutrix appearing in Court and proving the case -- their version duly corroborated by forensic report -- offence made out. [Para 46
(7) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.376(2)(g), 450 and 395 -- accused not named in police statement though known by name -- prosecution case becomes doubtful -- entitled to acquittal. [Paras 13 & 53
(8) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.376(2)(g) Exp.I, 354, 450 and 395 -accused living in era of bow and arrow -- illiterate even after 58 years of independence -- entitled for conviction of minimum sentences. AIR 2004 SC 395, (2004)7 SCC 257, AIR 2004 SC 4122 and AIR 1989 SC 1475 followed. [Paras 56 & 57
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 376¼2½¼N½@511 rFkk 354 && vfHk;ksD=h ls lkewfgd cykRlax vkSj ‘khy Hkax dk iz;kl && vfHk;qDrx.k dk izR;sd izdkj dh ifjfLFkfr esa cykRlax dk vk‘k; ugha Fkk && vijk/k dsoy /kkjk 354 ds v/khu vkrk gSA
22-19-1998 dks Mksyksjst] v lk 4 jkstyhy] v lk 5 esfVYMk vkSj v lk 8 Vsjslk dk uokikM+k&HkaMfjk dkUosZaV fe‘ku esa vkokl FkkA jkr esa 10%00 crs vijkg~u og lc lks jgh FkhA ml le; Hkou dh ?kaVh cth] ftl ij ls v lk 4 jkstyhu tkxh vkSj nLrkost rd xbZ vkSj njokts rd xbZ vkSj ns[kk fd dqN yksx Hkou ds ckgj ckrphr dj jgs gSa v lk 2 Mksyksjst Hkh v lk 4 ds ikl xbZA mlus ns[kk fd ckgj [kMs+ O;fDr vkS"kf/k ek¡x jgs FksA mUgksaus ,d cPps dk jksuk Hkh lqukA bu lkf{k;kas us ns[kk fd mu O;fDr;ksa esa ls dqN us viuh dej ij pknj yisVh Fkh vkSj dqN lkQk ck¡/ks Fks rFkk muds gkFkksa esa ykBh] MaMs] deku vkSj rhj Fks vkSj njoktk [kksyus dk vkxzg dj jgs FksA bl ij ls bu lkf{k;ksa us Qknj ls vuqKk dh iphZ ykus dk dgk ftl ij ls mUgksaus dgk fd Qknj miyC/k ugha gSA rnqijkar bu lkf{k;ksa us flLVj cksjksfudk ds lkFk vkus dks dgkA blds i‘pkr~ ,d O;fDr dejs dh tkyh rksM+us yxkA ml le; rd ;g lk{kh Hkou dh Nr ij xbZ vkSj lhVh ctkus yxh fdarq mudh lgk;rk dksbZ ugha vk;k vkSj Hkou ds ckgj [kMs+ O;fDr ij iRFkj QSadus yxsA ftl ij ls jkstyhu vkSj Mksyksjkst uhps dejs esa vkbZA v lk 5 esfVYMk- v lk 8 Vsjslk ds lkFk izkFkZuk d{k esa xbZ vkSj Hkhrj ls njokts es flVduh yxk nhA mlds i‘pkr~ mu O;fDr;ksa us gFkkSM+s tSls midj.k ls njoktk rksM+ fn;k vkSj Hkou esa ?kql vk, ftl ij ls bu lk{khx.k us bu O;fDr;ksa ls dgk fd os og oLrq,¡ ys tk,¡ ftudh mUgs bPNk gks vkSj mUgsa {kqC/k ugha djsaA bu cnek‘kksa es ls ,d us dgk fd os mudh dksbZ gkfu ugha djssasxs vkSj dsoy uxnh ds fy, dgk ftl ij ls bu pkj lkf{k;ksa us njoktk [kksy fn;kA njoktk [kksys tkus ij yxHkx 8 ls 10 cnek‘k dejs ds Hkhrj vk, ftuesa ls ik¡p cnek‘kksa us bPNk vksj lEefr ds fcuk v lk 2 ls cyiwoZd eSFkqfud dk;Z fd;k] nks O;fDr;ksa us v lk 4 ij cykRlax dkfjr djus dk iz;kl fd;k] nks vU; O;fDr;ksa us Hkh v lk 5 ls cyiwoZd cykRlax fd;k vkSj pkj vU; O;fDr;ksa us v lk 8 ls cykr~ eSFkqu fd;kA mu cnek‘kksa dh bu pkjksa vfHk;ksD=h }kjk edZjh V~;wc ykbV ds izdk‘k esa ‘kuk[r dh xbZ FkhA cnek‘kksa us #-22]000@& dh jde] flykbZ e‘khu] gkFk ?kM+h] dSejk] VkbijkbVj vkSj vU; ?kjsyw oLrq,¡ ywVh FkhA ¿ iSjk 3À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g nf‘kZr djus ds fy, vfHkys[kxr dksbZ lkexzh ugha gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k izR;sd izdkj dh ifjfLFkfr esa vfHk;ksD=h v lk 4 ds lkFk eSFkqu djus ds fy, —rladYi FksA mlus fofufnZ"Vr% dFku fd;k gS fd mlds varoZL= gVk, ugha x, Fks rFkk vihykFkhZx.k Hkh vaMjoh;j igus gq, FksA mUgksaus viu tuukax vuko`Ùk ugha fd, FksA vfHk;ksD=h v lk 4 ds vuqlkj] vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds ikl ?kkrd gfFk;kj Fks] fdarq mUgksaus dksbZ {kfr dkfjr ugha dh vFkok vfHk;ksD=h dks vkRe&leiZ.k ds fy, foo‘k Hkh ugha dhA ¼2004½4 ,l lh lh 379 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 25À
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 375 && cykRlax && vijk/k dkfjr gksus ds fy, izos‘ku vfuok;Z gS && fdruk&gh vkRe gks] ;g egRoghu gSA ¼2004½4 ,l lh lh 379 vuqlfjrA
¿ iSjk 25À
¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 154 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vfHk;ksfD=;ksa esa ls fdlh us nkf[ky ugha dh && nkf[ky djus okys O;fDr dks cykRlax dh tkudkjh ugha && vijk/k] iqfyl ds LFky ij igq¡pus ds i‘pkr~ izdV && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ?kVuk dk fo‘odks"k ugha gS && cykRlax dk vuqYys[k egRoghu gSA ¿ iSjk 41À
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 376¼2½¼N½ && lkewfgd cykRlax && vfHk;ksD=h dk dFku U;k;kyf;d iz;ksx‘kkyk fjiksVZ ls iq"V && vijk/k lkfcrA
¿ iSjk 41À
¼5½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && && lkewfgd ds vijk/k ds vkgr && vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds psgjs ns[kus ds fy, i;kZIr le; vkSj volj rFkk izdk‘k Hkh miyC/k Fkk && psgjs muds ekul esa vafdr gks x, && O;fDrRo ds C;kSjs izdV ugha fd;k tkuk egRoghu gSA 2003¼2½ ts ,y ts 404 ¼mPpre U;k-½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 44 ,oa 45À
¼6½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 376¼2½¼N½ && lkewfgd cykRlax && ekeyk ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs lkfcr djus dk Hkkj lnSo vfHk;kstu ij gksrk gS && vfHk;ksD=hx.k U;k;ky; es milatkr vkSj muds }kjk ekeyk lkfcr fd;k x;k && mudk dFku U;k;kyf;d iz;ksx‘kkyk fjiksVZ ls lE;d~ :i ls iq"V && vijk/k fl)A
¿ iSjk 46À
¼7½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 376¼2½¼N½ 450 rFkk 395 && vfHk;qDr iqfyl dFku esa ukfer ugha ;|fi uke Kkr && vfHk;kstu dk i{kdFku lansgiw.kZ gks tkrk gS && nks"keqfDr dk gdnkj gSA ¿ iSjk 13 ,oa 53À
¼8½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 376¼2½¼N½ Li"Vh] 1] 354] 450 rFkk 395 && vfHk;qDr dk thou rhj&deku ds ;qx dk && Lora=rk ds 58 o"kZ i‘pkr~ Hkh vf‘kf{kr && U;wure naMkns‘k dk gdnkj gSA , vkb vkj 2004 ,l lh 395] ¼2004½7 ,l lh lh 257] , vkb vkj 2004 ,l lh 4122 rFkk , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 1475 vuqlfjrA
¿ iSjk 56 ,oa 57À
Kochar, J. -- 1. -- The appellants named above being dissatisfied by the judgment dated 28.4.2001 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhabua, in Sessions Trial No.518/98 thereby finding the appellants guilty of the offences under sections 376(2)(vi), 376(2)(g)(1), 376(2)(g)(1) read with sections 511, 450 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as under:
"(a) Appellant No.1 Bhurji, No.2 Pidiya, No.8 Badra alias Bahadra, No.9 Chamna and No. 10 Ramesh to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 376(2)(g) and 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code three counts, in default of payment of fine to suffer two years RI and to suffer five years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 376(2)(g) (Exp1.1) read with section 511. Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine to suffer six months' RI and two years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 450, Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine to suffer six months RI and ten years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 395, Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to suffer six months' RI.
(b) Appellants No.3 Kamji and 4 Khemraj to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 376(2)(g)(1)(Expl.l) Indian Penal Code on three counts and in default of payment of fine to suffer two years' RI and five years RI respectively and fine of Rs.l,000/- under section 376(2)(g) read with section 511, Indian Penal Code. in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for six months and RI for two years and fine of Rs.l,000/- under section 450, Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine to suffer six months RI and ten years RI and fine of Rs.l,000/- under section 395, Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine to suffer six months RI.
(c) Appellant No.6 Mesriya and No.7 Jhitra to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.l,000/- under section 376(2)(g)( l), Indian Penal Code on three counts and in default of payment of fine to suffer two years RI and five years RI and fine of Rs.l,000/- under section 376(2)(g) read with section 511, Indian Penal Code and two years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 450, Indian Penal Code and appellant No.6 Mesriya also to suffer ten years RI and fine of Rs.l,000/-. Under section 395, Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine to suffer six months RI on each count.
(d) Appellant No.5 Daru s/o Mansingh to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.l,000/- under section 376(2)(g)(Expl.l) Indian Penal Code on three counts and in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for two years and to undergo RI for five years and fine of Rs.l,000/- under section 376(2)(g) read with section 511, Indian Penal Code and two years RI and fine of Rs.l,000/- under section 450, Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine of Rs.l,000/- to suffer six months."
2. Here it may be stated that in this case in all 23 accused persons were prosecuted. Three accused persons have been reported to have absconded. In total 23 accused persons have been tried, convicted and sentenced for various offences, but out of those 23 accused persons the present appellants have preferred this appeal.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case as unfolded before the trial Court are that on 22.9.1998 PW2 Dolorese, PW4 Roseline, PW5 Metilda and PW8 Teressa were lodging in Navapada-Bhandariya Convent Mission. In the night at 10:00 p.m. they all were sleeping. At that time call bell of the building rang upon which PW4 Roseline woke up and went up to the gate and saw that some people were chit-chatting outside the building. PW2 Dolorese also went near PW4. She saw that the people standing outside were asking for medicine. They also heard the cry of a child. These witnesses saw that out of those people some had wrapped their shawls around their waist and some of them were in turban and they were having lathis, sticks, bow and arrows in their hands and were insisting to open the gate. On this, these two witnesses asked them t
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
