Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.
Phiroz v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 1042 of 2016 (Indore): against the judgment dated 11.5.2016 passed by the XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in S. S. T. No. 150/2015; Decided on 12.5.2022
(1) Age -- third molar not erupted -- prosecutrix below 17 years of age -- Courts stated prosecutrix’s apparent age as 13 years -- corroborate entry in Birth Register -- as per ossification test report, radiological age 15-17 years -- proved beyond reasonable doubt that prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at time of incident -- not competent to give consent. (2010) 8 SCC 714 followed. Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology (23rd Edition) relied on.
[Paras 15 & 16
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 363 -- prosecutrix minor -- not competent to give consent -- appellant took her from legal guardianship of her father without his consent -- conviction affirmed. [Para 17
(3) Criminal Trial -- solitary testimony of victim -- sufficient for convicting accused provided it is unimpeachable and trustworthy.
[Para 19
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 376 (2) (I) and 376 (2) (N) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -- S. 5L/6 -- prosecutrix stated that appellant took her to Khandwa, Bhopal and Pithampur and committed rape upon her -- deposed differently in cross-examination that he took her to Khandwa, thereafter to Nepanagar and then to Bhopal and Pithampur -- specifically stated that she stayed with appellant at Nepanagar, Bhopal and Pithampur but he did not commit any wrong with her -- totally denied that he committed rape upon her at aforesaid places -- during medical examination, no external or internal injury found around prosecutrix's genital region -- hymen torn with old scar -- prosecutrix's statements with regard to commission of offence of rape inconsistent -- require corroboration for convicting appellant -- material improvements -- testimony of prosecutrix cannot be accepted as that of sterling witness -- not safe to rely upon without corroboration -- conviction not sustainable. (2013) 4 SCC 206 followed. [Paras 19 & 20
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 366 -- abduction -- mere finding that woman was abducted is not enough -- unless prosecution proves that abduction is for purposes mentioned in S. 366, Court cannot hold accused guilty u/s. 366. AIR 2018 SC 2099 followed. [Para 21
¼1½ vk;q && rhljh nkढ+ ugha mxh && vfHk;ksD=h 17 o"kZ dh vk;q ls de && U;k;ky;ksa us vfHk;ksD=h dh izdV vk;q 13 o"kZ crkbZ && tUe jftLVj esa izfof"V laiq"V && vfLFkfodkl ijh{k.k fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj jsfM;ksykWftdy vk;q 15&17 o"kZ && ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs lkfcr fd ?kVuk ds le; vfHk;ksD=h 18 o"kZ ls de vk;q dh Fkh && lEefr nsus ds fy, l{ke ughaA ¼2010½8 ,l lh lh 714 vuqlfjrA eksnh Ñr esfMdy T;wfjlizwMsUl ,aM VkWDlhdksykWth ¼23ok¡ laLdj.k½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 15 ,oa 16
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 363 && vfHk;ksD=h vizkIro; && lEefr nsus ds fy, l{ke ugha && vihykFkhZ mls mlds firk dh lEefr ds fcuk] mudh fofèkd laj{kdrk esa ls ys x;k && nks"kflf) vfHkiq"VA ¼iSjk 17
¼3½ nkafMd fopkj.k && ihfM+r dk ,dek= ifjlk{; && vfHk;qDr dks fl)nks"k Bgjkus ds fy, i;kZIr] ijarq og vuf/k{ksi.kh; vkSj fo'oluh; gksA ¼iSjk 19
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 376¼2½ ¼>½ rFkk 376 ¼2½ ¼ढ½ && ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 && /kkjk 5B@6 && vfHk;ksD=h dk dFku fd vihykFkhZ mls [kaMok] Hkksiky vkSj ihFkeiqj ys x;k rFkk mlls cykRlax fd;k && izfrijh{kk esa fHkUu vfHklk{; fn;k fd og mls [kaMok] fQj usikuxj vkSj fQj Hkksiky rFkk ihFkeiqj ys x;k && fofufnZ"V dFku fd og vihykFkhZ ds lkFk usikuxj] Hkksiky vkSj ihFkeiqj jgh ijarq mlus vfHk;ksD=h ds lkFk dqN xyr ugha fd;k && iw.kZr% bUdkj fd;k fd vihykFkhZ us iwoksZDr LFkkuksa ij mlls cykRlax fd;k && fpfdRl;h ijh{k.k ds nkSjku] vfHk;ksD=h ds tuukax {ks= ds vklikl dksbZ cká ;k vkarfjd {kfr ugha ikbZ xbZ && ;ksfuPNn fonh.kZ] ?kko ds iqjkus fpUg ds lkFk && cykRlax dk vijk/k fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vfHk;ksD=h ds dFkuksa esa folaxfr && vihykFkhZ dks fl)nks"k Bgjkus ds fy, laiqf"V visf{kr && rkfRod lqèkkj && vfHk;ksD=h dk ifjlk{; mRÑ"V lk{kh dk ifjlk{; ugha ekuk tk ldrk && laiqf"V ds fcuk mldk voyac ysuk fujkin ugha && nks"kflf) fLFkj j[ks tkus ;ksX; ughaA ¼2013½ 4 ,l lh lh 206 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19 ,oa 20
¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 366 && vigj.k && ek= ;g fu"d"kZ i;kZIr ugha fd L=h dk vigj.k gqvk && tc rd vfHk;kstui{k ;g lkfcr ugha djrk fd vigj.k /kkjk 366 esa mfYyf[kr iz;kstuksa ds fy, Fkk] U;k;ky; vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 366 ds v/khu nks"kh vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha dj ldrkA , vkb vkj 2018 ,l lh 2099 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 21
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) [in short “Cr.P.C.”] against the judgment dated 11.5.2016 passed by the Court of 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (M.P.) in S.S.T. No.150/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 376(2)(I) and 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) alongwith section 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “the POCSO Act”) and in view of provisions of section 42 of POCSO Act, sentenced him as follows :
| Conviction | Sentence | ||
|
| Imprisonment | Fine Amount | Additional Imprisonment in Default of payment of fine |
| 366 of IPC | 10 years R.I. | 1,000/- | 1 year R.I. |
| 376(2)(I) of IPC | 10 years R.I. | 1,000/- | 1 year R.I. |
| 376(2)(N) of IPC | 10 years R.I. | 1,000/- | 1 year R.I. |
All the sentences to run concurrently
2. Prosecution story, in brief is as follows :
(i) Appellant and complainant's minor daughter – prosecutrix aged about 13 years were known to each other as appellant lives opposite to prosecutrix maternal grandfather's house at Geeta Nagar, Indore. On 30.4.2015, at about 9:00 p.m., when complainant alongwith his other family members including his minor daughter - prosecutrix had gone to attend a marriage function of his relative at Sunny Garden, Geeta Nagar Indore, then appellant called his minor daughter – prosecutrix on the road and on the pretext of marriage, took her to Sarwate Bus Stand, Indore in an autorickshaw and thereafter to Khandwa by bus and forcefully committed rape upon her. Thereafter, he took her to Bhopal by bus and there also, he committed rape upon her.
(ii) Complainant on being informed by witnesses Shammo Bi and Shayra Bi that appellant took prosecutrix in an autorickshaw searched for her at nearby places and thereafter on 1.5.2015 at about 19:00 hrs lodged FIR (Ex P-5) at Police Station Chandan Nagar against the appellant for the offences punishable u/S 363 and 366 of IPC. On the next day, i.e. on 2.5.2015, at about 13.05 hours, S.I. S.S. Rajput went to the place of occurrence and prepared spot map (Ex. P-6), recorded the statements of complainant and other witnesses. Thereafter, on 6.5.2015 recovered the prosecutrix from the possession of the appellant as per dastiyabi panchnama (Ex. P-2) and sent the her to District Hospital, Indore for medical examination, where on the same day, at about 20:25 hours. Dr. Kalpana Amb medically examined her and prepared the MLC report (Ex.P-7) wherein she observed as follows :
* Old mark of abrasion brown in colour below lower lip Rt. Side.
* Multiple abrasion marks on the whole back.
* No injury around genital region, hymen torned, old scar.
* Dental formula
7/7
7/7
(iii) Dr. Kalpana Amb also prepared prosecutrix's vaginal swab slide, collected her pubic hairs and her undergarments, sealed and hand over the same to the concerned police constable, who brought the prosecutrix to hospital for chemical examination. For determination of age, she referred the prosecutrix to Radiologist for ossification test. On the same day, Radiologist of District Hospital, Indore has done X-ray of prosecutrix's elbow, wrist, hip and chest and opined as follows :
* Epiphysis of upper end of radius (elbow) has been fused. Epiphysis of lower end of radius (wrist) not fused. Epiphysis of chest appear but not fused.
* Radiological age is above 15 years (fifteen years) & below 17 years (seventeen years).
(iv) On the same day i.e. 6.5.2015, S.I. S.S. Rajput arrested the appellant as per arrest memo (Ex. P-8), sent him to District Hospital, Indore for medical examination, where on the same day at about 21:50 hours, he was medically examined and found capable of doing sexual activities. S.I. S
The prosecution must provide conclusive evidence of a victim's age and lack of consent in sexual assault cases; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The importance of proving the prosecutrix's age and the need for corroboration in her statements to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must provide conclusive evidence of a victim's age in POCSO cases; reliance on school records alone is insufficient without corroborative proof.
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
