Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Hemant Gupta, CJ, Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
Dinesh s/o Ram Kishore Vyas - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2008
Decided On : 16-12-2017
Conviction - Sexual Assault - Indian Penal Code Section 376(2)(g) - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl from a scheduled caste. The victim's statement, medical evidence, and corroborating testimonies supported the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of sexually assaulting the victim based on her testimony, medical evidence, and corroborating testimonies. The court rejected the argument that the victim's age was over 16 years, as her date of birth was established as 20.06.1993, making her little more than 13 years old at the time of the incident.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, the age of the victim, and the timeliness of the FIR and medical examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's consistent testimony, medical evidence, and corroborating testimonies to establish the appellant's guilt. The court also emphasized that the timeliness of the FIR and medical examination did not cast doubt on the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the appellant's conviction under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code.
Hemant Gupta, CJ.
The present appeal is directed against a judgment of conviction passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Panna (M.P.) in Special Case No. 37/2006 on 05.01.2008 whereby appellant Dinesh s/o Ram Kishore Vyas has been convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code along with co-accused Prahlad s/o Ramswaroop Rajput and vide separate order, both have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further under rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix (hereinafter referred to as the “G”) made to S.R. Khan, Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) posted as In-charge Police Chowki, Maheba, Police Station Amanganj, District Panna on 26.09.2006 at 08.05 p.m. in respect of a sexual assault on her. The statement is that she is a student of Class-8th. She went to the field to ease herself at about 07.30 p.m. After coming back, she was washing her hands. At that time, appellant Dinesh Vyas and co-accused Prahlad Singh Rajput caught hold of her. Dinesh Vyas pressed her mouth. Naresh Basor was also accompanying the accused persons. They physically lifted her and took her behind the house of Ruppu Dhimar. Dinesh made her lay down. Prahlad and Naresh were asked to keep watch so that nobody comes. Both of them stood at a distance. Dinesh removed her underwear and committed forcible intercourse. She got acute pain in her genital and was writhing in pain. The blood started oozing out of her genital. At that stage, Dinesh Vyas, Prahlad Singh Rajput and Naresh Basor ran away. She came back home and informed about the incident to her maternal-grandmother Bunda Bai and maternal-uncle Baiyan. Thereafter, she along with her maternal-uncle and maternal-aunt (Guddi) came to report to the police station. On the basis of such report, initially an FIR (Ex.P-9) was recorded on 26.09.2006 at 08.05 p.m. at Police Post (Chowki Maheba, P.S. Amanganj) with Crime No.026/2006 for an offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. After recording the FIR (Ex.P-9), Lakhanlal (PW-5), Head Constable No.509 had taken the said FIR to Police Station Amanganj, District Panna for registration of crime at the Police Station and on the basis of the said report, an FIR (Ex.P-8) was registered in the intervening night of 27.09.2006 at 12.30 a.m. at Police Station Amanganj, District Panna as Crime No.162/2006 against appellant Dinesh Vyas, co-accused Prahlad Singh Rajput and Naresh Basor for the offence as mentioned above. Copy of the FIR (Ex.P-9) registered at “zero” number has been annexed with the FIR (Ex.P-8).
4. S.R. Khan, who recorded report (Ex.P-9) appeared as PW-13. He deposed that statement of the prosecutrix was recorded at 08.05 p.m. when she came with her maternal-uncle and maternal-aunt. The prosecutrix and her maternal-uncle Bhaiyan gave written consent for her examination and then he sent the prosecutrix for medico-legal examination vide memo Ex.P-2. In cross-examination, he stated that prosecutrix has not stated in the statement (Ex.P-9) that she shouted and that her Salwar was removed before assaulting her but she has stated that her underwear was removed and that she left her Salwar and underwear at the place of occurrence.
5. Dr. Vijeta Verma (PW-2) examined the prosecutrix at about 9.30 p.m. on the same day. She deposed that prosecutrix “G” was wearing Maroon coloured Kurta and white Dupatta (drape), but, her Kurta was stained with blood; her black underwear was also stained with blood and she was not wearing Salwar. Her both hands and feet had fresh blood. The blood was also found on her right leg and thigh. She also had an abrasion on her left cheek and also on her neck. There was a contusion 2 x 2 cm on her right thigh. The age of the prosecutrix was found to be 12-14 years subjec
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
