Back
1998 Supreme(MP) 781
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
V.K. Agrawal, J.
Tej Ram & 2 Ors.
Vs.
State of M.P.
Cr. A. No. 2063, 2064 and 2065 of 1997 (J)
Decided On: 07.10.1998
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. Y.K. Gupta, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. P.C. Jain, Advocate
The sufficiency of evidence, including identification and circumstantial evidence, can establish guilt even in the absence of a test identification parade during investigation.
Headnote:
Section 376 - Conviction under Section 376 (2) (g) & 506-Part-II of the I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 376 (2) (g), IPC Section 506 Part-II - The judgment discusses the conviction of the accused under Section 376 (2) (g) & 506-Part-II of the I.P.C. and the sentencing. It highlights the prosecution's case, medical evidence, identification of the accused, and the legal principles related to identification parades and circumstantial evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix and her friends were returning home when they were stopped by the accused, who then committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The prosecution's case was supported by medical evidence and witness statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused Tejram and Khunnu guilty based on the prosecutrix's identification and medical evidence. The appeal of accused Aghanlal was allowed as he was not directly involved in the incident.
Issues: Identification of the accused, sufficiency of evidence, and the absence of a test identification parade during investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the prosecutrix's identification, medical evidence, and legal precedents to establish the guilt of the accused. The absence of a test identification parade during investigation did not vitiate the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeals of accused Tejram and Khunnu were dismissed, confirming their conviction and sentence. The appeal of accused Aghanlal was allowed, setting aside his conviction and sentence.
V.K. Agrawal, J.
1. The accused/Appellants stand convicted Under Section 376 (2) (g) & 506-Part-II of the I.P.C. and each of them have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- Under Section 376 (2) (g) I.P.C., while each of them have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years Under Section 506 Part-II of the I.P.C. by judgment dated 13.8.1997 in S.T. No. 119/1996 by I Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat.
2. Cr. Appeal No. 2063/1997 has been filed on behalf of accused/ Appellants Tejram, Khunnu @ Sudhram and Aghan. However, the accused/Appellant Khunnu @ Sudhram has also filed Cr. Appeal No. 2064/1997, while the accused/Appellant Aghan has filed Cr. Appeal No. 2065 of 1997 from jail.
3. Since ail the appeals relate to the same judgment, they are being disposed of together by this common judgment.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.9.1995, prosecutrix Sushilabai (P.W.5) along with her friends Hemlata (P.W.6) and Subhadra (P.W.7) had gone to the school at Paraswada. After the school was over at about 4.00 P.M., they were returning back to their home at village Salhe from the thoroughfare going through the jungle. When they reached near Jatar-Nala, the accused/Appellants met them, stopped them and thereafter, the accused/Appellant Tejram caught hold of prosecutrix Sushilabai (P.W.5), dragged her to some distance and fell her down under a tree. Hemlata (PW-6) and Subhadra (PW-7) ran away from the spot. Appellant Tejram thereafter under threat committed forcible sexual intercourse with prosecutrix Sushila Bai (PW-5). Appellant Khunnu @ Sudhram also committed forcible sexual intercouse with Sushila Bai. She was thereafter threatened by the accused/Appellants. Hemlata (P.W.6) and Subhadra (P.W.7) had informad about the incident in the village, upon which Rajendra (P.W.8) brother of prosecutrix and others came and met her. Sushila Bai (P.W.5) thereafter lodged report (Ex.P/7) at the Police Station. Offence on the basis thereof was registered.
5. During investigation, Sushila Bai (P.W.5) was examined by Dr. Anita Parashar (P.W.13). She found that hymen of Sushila Bai was torn and an injury was found on her labia minora. There was clotted blood over it. It was opined that Sushila Bai was not used to sexual intercourse and rape might have been committed with her.
6. The learned Counsel for the accused/Appellants has urged that the prosecution evidence as against the accused/Appellants is infirm. No identification parade has been held during investigation and, therefore, since the prosecutrix and other witnesses did not claim to know the accused/ Appellants from before the incident, the Appellants could not have been held to be the miscreants. Howerver, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/State has supported the conviction as well as the sentence awarded to the accused/ Appellants.
7. Prosecutrix Sushila Bai (P.W.5) has stated that she used to go to School at Paraswada, which is about 9.0 Kms. away from her home at village Salhe. Way to the School is a Kutcha road and goes through the jungle. Hemlata (P.W.6) and Subhadra (P.W.7) also used to accompany her to the school. Narrating the incident, prosecutrix Sushila Bai (P.W.5) has stated that on 28.9.1995, she had gone to the school alongwith Hemlata (P.W.6) & Subhadra (P.W.7) as usual; and after the school was over, they were returning back at about 4.30 P.M. to their village. When they reached Jatar Nala, the three accused met them on the way. Accused/Appellant Tejram caught hold of her hand. Her Friends Hemlata (P.W.6) and Subhadra (P.W.7) had proceeded ahead. Prosecutrix Sushila Bai called for help. Accused/Appellant Tejram forcibly took her beneath a tree, made her to lie down and after gagging her and removing her underwear, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. He had also threatened her during the incident. Theareafter, accused/Appellant Tejram called the other accused, Khunnu @ Sudhram, who also committed sexual inte
