Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
VIVEK AGARWAL, G.S. AHLUWALIA, JJ.
Aftab Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2006
Decided On : 28-03-2018
Section 376 - Rape - IPC - [Section 376] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and medical reports, to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the impact of the offense on the victim, a minor girl, and emphasized the need for deterrence and proportionate punishment. The Supreme Court's interpretations of the law on identification parades were also referenced to support the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for an offense under Section 376 of IPC for raping a minor girl. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and medical reports to establish the guilt of the appellant. The victim's conduct and the impact of the offense on her were highlighted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of committing the offense under Section 376 of IPC based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and medical reports. The court emphasized the impact of the offense on the victim, a minor girl, and the need for deterrence and proportionate punishment.
Issues: The issues included the identification of the appellant, the impact of the offense on the victim, and the need for deterrence and proportionate punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and medical reports, to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court also emphasized the impact of the offense on the victim, a minor girl, and the need for deterrence and proportionate punishment.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court, finding the appellant guilty of committing the offense under Section 376 of IPC and dismissing the appeal.
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 26.08.2006 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 127/2006, by which the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 376 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo the life imprisonment.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that on 11.03.2006 at about 05:30 PM, a report was lodged by the complainant Kamal Singh (PW-1) to the effect that his cousin brother Rajesh had called him at about 05:30 PM and informed that the prosecutrix is lying in a pool of blood near Luharpura culvert. The complainant went to the place of incident along with his cousin brother Rajesh and found that the prosecutrix was lying in a pool of blood and had multiple injuries on her body and bleeding was going on from her private part. Some unknown persons had committed rape on her. The police on the basis of statement of the witnesses as well as the Test Identification Parade of the appellant filed the charge-sheet for an offence under Section 376 of IPC.
3. The Trial Court by order dated 10.06.2006 framed charge under Section 376 of IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Kamal Singh (PW-1), Ayodhya Prasad (PW-2), Geeta (PW-3), Prosecutrix (PW-4), Rishabh Vijay (PW-5), H.M. Karnwal (PW6), Dr. B.C. Goyal (PW-7), Kaushal Chand Jain (PW-8), K.D. Sharma (PW-9), Nirmal Kumar Dubey (PW-10), Dr. Sunita Jain (PW-11), M.L. Sharma (PW-12) and M.M. Malviya (PW-13). The appellant examined Naushad Khan in his defence as DW-1.
5. The Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo the life imprisonment by judgment dated 26.08.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 127/2006.
6. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court, it is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove that the witnesses have duly identified the appellant. The identification conducted by the police during investigation is not reliable. The dock identification of the appellant cannot be relied upon. The appellant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated.
7. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that not only the witnesses had duly identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade conducted by the police but they and the prosecutrix have identified the appellant in the Court also. Under these circumstances, it is clear that it is the appellant, who had committed rape on the prosecutrix who is a minor girl aged about 6 years. The ocular evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. First of all, it would be necessary to find out that whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape or not ? Dr. Sunita Jain (PW11) had medically examined the prosecutrix and on medical examination, she had found blood stains over her private part. Hymen was found ruptured at 6 O' Clock position. Posterior vaginal wall was found teared, however, no active bleeding was found. Two vaginal slides were prepared and discharge was taken from vagina. Blood stains were also found on the frock of the prosecutrix and specific opinion was given that “there is a possibility of sexual assault done within the duration of 24 hours”. The MLC report of the prosecutrix is Ex. P-12. This witness was cross-examined and only two questions were put to her and it was replied by this witness that it is incorrect to say that as the prosecutrix was minor, therefore, the vaginal slides could not have been prepared and this witness further denied that no rape was committed on the prosecutrix. Thus, from the MLC report of the prosecutrix, it is proved that she was subjected to rape as
AI
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.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
