2022 Supreme(MP) 438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Narayan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 2013
Decided On : 28-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: Rohit Mishra.
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant for the offence of rape under Section 376 of IPC.
Headnote:
Rape - IPC Section 376 - The court referred to Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines the offence of rape. The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the appellant was guilty of committing rape against a minor girl.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of IPC for raping a minor girl. The prosecutrix's mother found her coming out of the appellant's house crying and with blood-stained clothes. Medical examination confirmed signs of inflammation and blood on the prosecutrix's vaginal surface. DNA analysis matched the appellant's DNA with the underwear of the prosecutrix. The court found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and maintained his conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the testimonies of the prosecutrix, her mother, and other witnesses, as well as the medical and DNA evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant for the offence of rape under Section 376 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's conviction under Section 376 of IPC should be maintained as the prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also affirmed the sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Result: The appeal was dismissed as the appellant had already served his jail sentence.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 26.04.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah District Morena in S.T. No. 80/2013, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs.25,000/-with default rigorous imprisonment of one year.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 31.01.2013, mother of the prosecutrix had a fast of Thursday and after performing prayers, she gave a dough to the prosecutrix for giving it to a Cow. Accordingly, at about 11:00 AM, the prosecutrix went near the house 2 CRA-469-2013 of Narayan Kushwah, where the Cow was tied. When the prosecutrix did not return back even after half an hour, then her mother went in search of her and found that her daughter/prosecutrix was coming out of the room of the present appellant and was crying. The appellant also came out of the house and after noticing the mother of the prosecutrix went back to his room. Mother of the prosecutrix brought the prosecutrix back to her house and inquired about the incident, then the prosecutrix informed that she has been raped. She further clarified that the appellant has also extended a threat that in case, if the incident is narrated to anybody, then he would strangulate her. When mother of the prosecutrix examined the body of the prosecutrix after removing her pant and undergarments, then she found that there was blood on the private part of the prosecutrix and her underwear was also stained with blood. The entire incident was narrated by the mother of the prosecutrix to her mother-in-law as well as sister-in-law (Devrani). Thereafter, the prosecutrix was given a shower. Her husband (father of the prosecutrix) came back in the evening and, accordingly, the FIR was lodged on 31.01.2013 at 17:00. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and it was opined that hymen could not be examined as the patient is not cooperating and is crying and, accordingly, an opinion was given that possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. However, it should be co-related with the circumstantial evidence and cerochemical examination. Vaginal stick, slide and underwear were seized. The appellant was arrested. The statement of the witnesses were recorded. Blood sample was collected for DNA examination.
3. The police after completing the investigation filed the charge-sheet for offence under Section 376 of IPC. The Trial Court by order dated 01.03.2013 framed the charges under Section 376 of IPC.
4. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court by impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant for the above-mentioned offences.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined the mother of the prosecutrix “A” (PW-1), prosecutrix (PW-2), grandmother of the prosecutrix “B” (PW-3), Kailadevi (PW-4), father of the prosecutrix “C” (PW-5), Rakesh (PW-6), Dr. G.C. Arya (PW-7), Arvind Singh Sikarvar (PW-8), Ramhet (PW-9), Dr. Shalini Mishra (PW-10), Umesh Singh (PW-11) and RNS Gaur (PW-12).
6. The appellant examined Ramesh (DW-1) in his defence.
7. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence mentioned above.
8. As none had appeared for the appellant, therefore, this Court has gone through the record and also heard the counsel for the State as well as considered the grounds raised in the memo of appeal.
9. The prosecutrix (PW-2) is a minor girl aged about 6 years. She has stated that the appellant is known to her as he is also residing in the same village. On the fateful day, she had gone to feed dough to the cow. The appellant committed rape on her after gagging her mouth. Thereafter, her mother came there and after noticing her, the appellant left the place. Thereafter, her mother brought her back to her house. She was crying. Her clothes were stained with blood. She was given shower