SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(MP) 250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ.
Banwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 9106 of 2018 (Gwalior): against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Dabra, District Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 69/2016; Decided on 27.10.2022

Advocates:
Sameer Kumar Shrivastava for appellant; Naval Kumar Gupta, Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Headnote:

(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss. 273, 299 and 317 -- evidence in absence of accused -- neither willingness of accused nor any order or direction by trial Court that evidence be recorded in absence of accused -- no order stating reasons why statements of witnesses were recorded in absence of accused -- counsel of accused also did not state that he was authorized by accused to cross-examine witnesses in his absence -- held -- there was infringement of salutary principle of S. 273 -- matter remanded for examination, cross-examination and re-examination of prosecution witnesses in presence of accused and his counsel. (2009) 7 SCC 104 and (2019) 20 SCC 481 followed. 1996 CrLJ 46, 2020 (1) JLJ 58 and 2020 (3) JLJ 235 relied on. [Paras 16, 17, 21 & 23

(2) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -- S. 2 (d) -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 -- R. 12 -- age of prosecutrix -- no determination of age of victim as per R. 12 -- victim apparently aged 12-13 years -- held -- non-determination of age at most an irregularity -- would not vitiate entire proceedings -- matter remanded -- trial Court directed to conduct enquiry with regard to age of prosecutrix in accordance with R. 12. [Paras 22 & 23

¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && èkkjk 273] 299 rFkk 317 && vfHk;qDr dh vuqifLFkfr esa lk{; && u rks vfHk;qDr dh jtkeanh] u fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk dksbZ vkns'k ;k funZs'k fd vfHk;qDr dh vuqifLFkfr esa lk{; vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tk, && ;g dkj.k mfYyf[kr djrs gq, dksbZ vkns'k ugha fd lkf{k;ksa ds dFku vfHk;qDr dh vuqifLFkfr esa D;ksa vfHkfyf[kr fd, x, && vfHk;qDr ds dkmUlsy dk Hkh dFku ugha fd vfHk;qDr dh vuqifLFkfr esa lkf{k;ksa dh izfrijh{kk djus ds fy, mls vfHk;qDr }kjk izkf/kÑr fd;k x;k && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && /kkjk 273 ds fgrdkjh fl)kar dk vfrya?ku gqvk && vfHk;qDr rFkk mlds dkmUlsy dh mifLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa dh ijh{kk] izfrijh{kk vkSj iqu% ijh{kk ds fy, ekeyk izfrizsf"krA ¼2009½7 ,l lh lh 104 rFkk ¼2019½20 ,l lh lh 481 vuqlfjrA 1996 lh vkj ,y ts 46] 2020¼1½ ts ,y ts 58 rFkk 2020¼3½ ts ,y ts 235 voyafcrA¼iSjk 16] 17] 21 ,oa 23
¼2½ ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 && èkkjk 2¼?k½ && fd'kksj U;k; ¼ckydksa dh ns[kjs[k vkSj laj{k.k½ fu;e] 2007 && fu-12 && vfHk;ksD=h dh o; && ihfM+r dh o; dk fu- 12 ds vuqlkj vo/kkj.k ugha fd;k x;k && ihfM+r izdVr% 12&13 o"kZ o; dh && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && o; vo/kkfjr ugha djuk vf/kd&ls&vf/kd ,d vfu;ferrk && laiw.kZ dk;Zokgh nwf"kr ugha gksxh && ekeyk izfrizsf"kr && fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks vfHk;ksD=h dh o; ds ckjs esa fu-12 ds vuqlkj tk¡p djus dk funs'kA ¼iSjk 22 ,oa 23

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal had been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.10.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.69/2016 by the Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Dabra, District Gwalior, whereby the appellant though had been held guilty and convicted under section 376(2)(i)(n), 506 IPC read with section 5 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and had been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for his entire natural life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under section 376(2)(i) (n) IPC and in the event of default in depositing the fine amount had to undergo a further period of 1 year R.I, under section 506 IPC 1 year R.I and a fine of Rs.300/-, in default in depositing fine amount had to undergo a further period of 3 months R.I.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 24.2.2016 prosecutrix along with Saba Rehman and Mamta Singh lodged a report with Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior that two years back when she was living with her paternal grandparents at Ambedkar Colony, Pichore Square, Dabra and as her mother had already passed away and father had contracted second marriage, one Baba, having big beard and mustaches used to visit her grandparents. Baba, who was called by her grandmother as Banwari, used to come to their house and ask her to be friends. She thought that friendship would be like handshake, so she agreed, but Baba told that this is not the way to be friends, for that you have to take all your clothes, to which she refused. One day in the night Baba took her clothes and then committed rape on her. This act was committed on her many times and every time Baba used to administer some pills and tell her that if you will take the pill you will not fall sick. He further used to threatened her for life if she would tell anybody about the incidents and when she actually got ill, she went to her maternal aunt Vandana (PW/6), who took her to her maternal grandmother’s house at Khera, where she told the entire story to her maternal grandmother. Two or three days prior to her reporting of the matter, she told the incident to the Madam, who had come to Khera to meet her, who accompanied her to the Police Station to report the matter.

3. During investigation on 25.2.2016 prosecutrix was send for medical examination and her MLC was done vide Ex. P/4. On the same day at the behest of the prosecutrix spot map Ex. P/3 was prepared by Constable Sanjay Singh (PW/12). On 1.3.2016 the appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/10 and on 19.3.2016 slides/clothes of prosecutrix and appellant were send for Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex. P/11. Further statements of Saba Rehman (PW/1), Mamta Singh (PW/2), maternal grandmother Uma (PW/3), Prosecutrix (PW/4), maternal Aunt Vandana (PW/6), one Baby w/o Harvilas, Bhuri w/o Ayodhya Goud, Bharti w/o Purushottam, Smt. Krishna w/o Narendra Goud, Narendra s/o Late Gulab Singh Goud (PW/7), Smt Ramshree w/o Late Gulab Singh Goud were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded on 25.2.2016.

4. Both in her 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements she had specifically stated that the incident is of 2 years back, the appellant used to visit the house of her paternal grandparents and he used to ask her to be friends with him, to which she had accepted, as she though that friendship means shaking hands and when she offered her hand, the appellant told her that this is not the way to be friends, for becoming friends you have to remove your clothes, but she refused. In the night the appellant took her to the room upstairs and removed her clothes and committed rape on her. He further used to administer her some pills and used to say they by taking those pills she will not fell ill. The appellant then committed rape on her number of times and threatened her of beating and for life. She tried to tell her grandparents but they didn’t believe her. In the year 20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top