Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 757
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
R.C.Mishra, J.
Bablu alias Dilip - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 232-1995 and From the Judgment and Order dated 17-1-1995 of the Court of I Addl. Sessions Judge, Balaghal (Camp Waraseoni) in S.T. No. 120-1993
Decided On : 15-03-2012
Mr. S.K. Nema, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. Sudesh Verma, Govt. Advocate for Respondent-State.
The importance of the prosecutrix's evidence, the need for sensitivity in rape cases, and the requirement to examine broader probabilities in evaluating evidence.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under Section 376 (2) (g) - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 376, Section 454, Section 506, Section 34, Section 114-A, Evidence Act - The court discussed the statutory presumption in Section 114-A of the Evidence Act, the significance of delay in lodging the FIR, the medical opinion and testimony of the prosecutrix, the non-conduction of Test Identification Parade, and the absence of spermatozoa in vaginal swab. The court emphasized the importance of the prosecutrix's evidence, the need for sensitivity in rape cases, and the requirement to examine broader probabilities in evaluating evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, a 15-year-old girl, was subjected to gang rape by the appellant and another individual. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the prosecutrix and her mother due to fear of the offenders. The medical opinion and testimony of the prosecutrix were discussed, along with the non-conduction of Test Identification Parade and the absence of spermatozoa in vaginal swab.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecutrix's evidence credible and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. The delay in lodging the FIR was considered inconsequential, and the absence of spermatozoa did not cast doubt on the prosecution case. The court emphasized the need for sensitivity in rape cases and the examination of broader probabilities in evaluating evidence.
Issues: The issues included the delay in lodging the FIR, the medical opinion and testimony of the prosecutrix, the non-conduction of Test Identification Parade, and the absence of spermatozoa in vaginal swab.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the prosecutrix's evidence, the need for sensitivity in rape cases, and the requirement to examine broader probabilities in evaluating evidence. The delay in lodging the FIR was considered inconsequential, and the absence of spermatozoa did not cast doubt on the prosecution case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned conviction and sentences were affirmed.
Judgment
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 17-1-1995, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat (Camp Waraseoni) in S.T. No. 120/ 93, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376 (2) (g) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 months.
2. In that case, after due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the CJM, Balaghat on 21-4-1993 against the appellant and co-accused Raman (hereinafter referred to as 'Raman'), who was shown as absconding. Thereafter, he could be arrested on 16-10-1997 and after further investigation; supplementary charge-sheet was put up against him on 10-1-1998. Upon conclusion of the trial, Raman was convicted, vide judgment dated 16-3-1999 passed by First ASJ, Balaghat in S.T. No. 27/98, under Section 376 (2) (g) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 months. The appeal preferred by Raman against the conviction and sentence and registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1042/1999, has already been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court for the reasons assigned in the order dated 13-10-2011.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, may be narrated thus :-
(i) At the relevant point of time, the prosecutrix (P. W. 4), a girl aged about 15 years, was living with her parents Latabai (P.W. 5) and Shriram (not examined) in a house located near Jhansirani Chowk in Ward No. 18 at Balaghat. Raman was residing in Motinagar locality falling in the same Ward, whereas residence of the appellant was situated in the nearby Ward No. 17.
(ii) On 20-1-1993 at about 10 a.m., in the course of a quarrel that had ensued between Latabai and a neighbour, popularly known as Sainik upon his comment that her conduct in allowing a large number of persons to visit her house was not proper and at the instance of the latter, the appellant and Raman belaboured the former with kicks and fists. Returning home, Latabai called her husband from the place of his work through the prosecutrix and proceeded to Jain Hospital for treatment.
(iii) At about 11 a.m., finding the prosecutrix all alone in the house, the appellant and Raman came there and after closing the door from inside, forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse one after the other. While leaving the house, both the accused threatened to kill the prosecutrix and to set fire to the house in case she divulged the incident to any person. Even though, at about 12 noon, on her return home, Latabai I was apprised by the prosecutrix of the incident yet, she did not muster courage to inform the police in view of the threats given by the offenders.
(iv) In the next morning, Latabai went to the police station to lodge report relating to the incident of beating. Returning home, she found the [prosecutrix bleeding profusely per vagina and then she could not I restrain herself from taking the prosecutrix to the police station. It was upon the FIR (Exh. P-6), that a case under Sections 376,454 and 506 read with Section 34, IPC was registered against the appellant and Raman.
(v) The prosecutrix was sent to the District Hospital for medical examination. Dr. Smt. Rajrani Khare (P.W. 1), while opining that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape, prepared slides from the vaginal smear for chemical analysis and also preserved underwear and sal war, for chemical examination.
(vi) During investigation, ASI Meena Shevale (P.W. 12) inspected the spot and seized a mattress cover, blood-stained underwear, salwar without string, two pieces of string and broken pieces of the bangles therefrom. On 19-3-1993, the appellant was apprehended and was also subjected to medical examination. Dr. C.K. Pardhi (P.W. 3) found him capable of performing sexual intercourse. The medical expert further prepared two slides from the appellant's semen and preserved the same for chemical analysis. The Investigating Officer also seiz
