Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Achal Kumar Paliwal, JJ.
Ajay v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 6781 of 2021 (Jabalpur): against the judgment dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Harda, District Harda in Special Case No. 100050/2016; Decided on 6.7.2023
(1) Witness -- sole testimony of prosecutrix -- conviction can very well be recorded on its basis provided such testimony inspires confidence. (2019) 16 SCC 759 followed. (1983) 3 SCC 217 (1996) 2 SCC 384 referred to. [Para 25]
(2) Witness -- sterling quality -- litmus test -- statement should be of very high quality -- no amount of cross-examination could cause dent on such statement. (2012) 8 SCC 21, (2011) 7 SCC 130 and (2016) 10 SCC 506 followed. 2023 (2) JLJ 272 (DB) relied on. [Paras 26 & 27]
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 376 (2) -- Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 -- S. 3/4 -- sole testimony of prosecutrix -- inconsistency in statement regarding age -- admitted that small incident had taken place and she has given different shape to said incident -- statement does not inspire confidence that she was forcibly picked up at around 9:00 pm from busy area of dense population -- house of appellant and victim had common partition wall and noise/voice travels from one house to another -- difficult to believe that young girl was forcibly taken by appellant to adjacent kachcha house, subjected to gang rape from 9:00 pm to 3:00 am and nobody noticed or heard voice -- she also did not raise alarm -- statement full of flaws, inconsistencies and contradictions -- cannot become sole foundation for approval of conviction. [Paras 27 to 29]
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 376 (2) -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 45 -- medical evidence -- no internal or external injuries -- doctor stated that possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out -- held -- medical report merely creates doubt -- cannot be treated as clinching evidence regarding commission of rape -- does not conclusively support ocular evidence. [Para 30]
(5) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -- S. 2 (d) -- age of prosecutrix -- method of determination of age -- statutory method exists in JJ Act -- determination of age on basis of evidence of Forest Range Officer totally unknown to law -- provisions of POCSO Act not attracted. [Para 31]
(6) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 376 (2) -- incident took place between 9:00 pm and 3:00 am in kachcha house adjacent to victim’s house -- wall of both houses common -- residents of adjacent house will certainly notice it -- day of incident was festival -- prosecutrix and mother clearly admitted that neighbours/mohallawalas attended function till 12:00 at night -- hut where incident allegedly took place situated in densely populated area -- victim’s mother came back home around 12 O’clock, could not find victim -- slept -- victim came back around 3 O’clock, then she came to know about incident -- not normal conduct -- no internal and external injuries on body of victim allegedly sexually assaulted by two persons for about six hours -- absence of credible medical evidence -- serious inconsistencies and contradictions in statements of victim -- highly improbable that such incident took place -- conviction of appellant set aside. (2018) 18 SCC 695 followed. (2006) 10 SCC 92, 2017 SCC Online Del. 9197 and (2007) 6 AIR Bom. R 690 referred to. [Para 34]
(7) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 313 -- no question put to appellant about FSL report -- said report certainly incriminating material -- should have been confronted with -- in absence thereof, since said report became reason/foundation for conviction, it certainly caused prejudice to appellant -- cannot be used against appellant -- as per said report, human semen found on undergarment of victim -- no DNA test conducted -- in absence of any clear finding as to whose semen was found, no useful purpose served in remanding matter for purpose of confronting appellant with FSL report u/s. 313 -- said report cannot be used to affirm conviction of appellant. 2023 SCC Online SC 609, (2023) 5 SCC 522, 2019 (1) JLJ 51 (SC) : (2019) 12 SCC 460 and Criminal Appeals No. 361-362 of 2018 followed. (2007) 12 SCC 341 referred to. [Paras 36 to 38]
(8) Motive -- enmity -- false implication -- merely because no previous enmity could be established, story of prosecution cannot be mechanically accepted. [Para 39]
(9) Rape -- standard of proof -- whether gang rape or singular rape, legal parameters and basic evidentiary parameters need to be satisfied with utmost clarity -- prosecution could not satisfy said test and could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt -- unable to hold that in case of gang rape, conviction can be recorded without establishing prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 39]
¼1½ lk{kh & vfÒ;¨D=h dk ,dek= ifjlk{; & ifjlk{; fo'okl¨Riknd g¨ r¨ mld¢ vkèkkj ij n¨"kflf) ÒyhÒkafr vfÒfyf[kr dh tk ldrh gSA ¼2019½ 16 ,l lh lh 759 vuqlfjrA ¼1983½ 3 ,l lh lh 217 rFkk ¼1996½ 2 ,l lh lh 384 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 25½
¼2½ lk{kh & mRÑ"V xq.koÙkk & fyVel ijh{k.k & dFku vR;fèkd mPp xq.koÙkk dk g¨uk vko';d & fdruh Òh çfrijh{kk djus ij ml dFku ij d¨Ã çfrdwy çÒko ugha iM+sA ¼2012½ 8 ,l lh lh 21] ¼2011½ 7 ,l lh lh 130 rFkk ¼2016½ 10 ,l lh lh 506 vuqlfjrA 2023 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 272 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 26 ,oa 27½
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 376 ¼2½ & ySafxd vijkèk¨a ls ckyd¨a dk laj{k.k vfèkfu;e] 2012 & èkkjk 3@4 & vfÒ;¨D=h dk ,dek= ifjlk{; & o; ls lacafèkr dFku esa folaxfr & Lohdkj fd;k fd N¨Vh lh ÄVuk ÄVh Fkh v©j mlus ml ÄVuk d¨ nwljk jax ns fn;k & ;g dFku fo'okl¨Riknd ugha fd mls vijkg~u yxÒx 9%00 cts Äuh tula[;k d¢ O;Lr {ks= ls cyiwoZd mBk fy;k x;k & vihykFkÊ v©j ihfM+rk d¢ edku¨a dh ,d&gh foÒktu nhokj rFkk ,d edku ls nwljs edku esa & 'k¨j@vkokt tkrh gS & fo'okl djuk dfBu fd vihykFkÊ }kjk fd'k¨j ;qorh d¨ lVs gq, dPps edku esa cyiwoZd ys tk;k x;k] vijkg~u 9%00 cts ls iwokZg~u 3%00 rd mld¢ lkFk lkewfgd cykRlax fd;k x;k v©j fdlh us ns[kk ;k lquk ugha & mlus 'k¨j Òh ugha epk;k & dFku =qfV;¨a] folaxfr;¨a v©j foj¨èkkÒkl¨a ls ifjiw.kZ & n¨"kflf) d¢ vuqe¨nu dk ,dek= vkèkkj ugha cu ldrkA ¼iSjk 27 ls 29½
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 376¼2½ & lk{; vfèkfu;e] 1872 & èkkjk 45 & fpfdRlh; lk{; & d¨Ã vkarfjd ;k ckg~; {kfr ugha & fpfdRld dk dguk fd ySafxd geys dh laÒkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vfÒfuèkkZfjr & fpfdRlh; çfrosnu ls ek= lansg l`ftr g¨rk gS & cykRlax fd, tkus d¢ ckjs esa fu'pk;d lk{; ugha ekuk tk ldrk & pk{kq"k lk{; dk fu.kkZ;d leFkZu ugha djrkA ¼iSjk 30½
¼5½ ySafxd vijkèk¨a ls ckyd¨a dk laj{k.k] vfèkfu;e] 2012 & èkkjk 2¼Ä½ & vfÒ;¨D=h dh o; & o; fuèkkZj.k dh i)fr & fd'k¨j U;k; vfèkfu;e esa dkuwuh i)fr nh xà gS & ou jsat vfèkdkjh d¢ lk{; d¢ vkèkkj ij o; dk fuèkkZj.k fofèk esa furkar vKkr & i¨Dl¨ vfèkfu;e d¢ micaèk vkÑ"V ughaA ¼iSjk 31½
¼6½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 376¼2½ & ÄVuk vijkg~u 9%00 cts v©j iwokZg~u 3%00 cts d¢ eè; ihfM+rk d¢ edku ls lVs gq, dPps edku esa ÄVh & n¨u¨a edku¨a dh nhokj ,d & layXu edku d¢ fuokfl;¨a dk è;ku ml ij vo'; gh tk,xk & ÄVuk d¢ fnu R;©gkj Fkk & vfÒ;¨D=h v©j ekrk us Li"V Lohdkj fd;k fd iM+¨lh@e¨gYysokys jkf= esa 12%00 cts rd dk;ZØe esa Fks & ftl >¨aiM+h esa ÄVuk vfÒdfFkrr% ÄVh og Äuh tula[;k d¢ {ks= fLFkr & ihfM+rk dh ekrk yxÒx 12 cts Äj y©Vh] mls ihfM+rk ugha feyh & l¨ xà & ihfM+rk yxÒx 3 cts y©Vh] rc mls ÄVuk d¢ ckjs esa Kkr gqvk & lkekU; vkpj.k ugha & vfÒdfFkrr% n¨ O;fDr;¨a }kjk yxÒx Ng ÄaV¨a rd ySafxd geys dh ihfM+rk dh nsg ij d¨Ã vkarfjd ;k ckg~; {kfr ugha & fo'oluh; fpfdRlh; lk{; dk vÒko & ihfM+rk d¢ dFku¨a esa xaÒhj folaxfr;ka v©j foj¨èkkÒkl & vR;ar vlaÒkO; fd ,slh ÄVuk ÄVh & vihykFkÊ dh n¨"kflf) vikLrA ¼2018½ 18 ,l lh lh 695 vuqlfjrA ¼2006½ 10 ,l lh lh 92] 2017 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu fnYyh 9197 rFkk ¼2007½ 6 , vkb vkj cacà vkj 690 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 34½
¼7½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 313 & U;k;kyf;d ç;¨x'kkyk çfrosnu d¢ ckjs esa vihykFkÊ ls d¨Ã ç'u ugha fd;k x;k & mDr çfrosnu fuf'pr :i ls vijkèk esa Qalkus okyh lkexzh & mls vihykFkÊ dk lkeuk djuk pkfg, Fkk & bld¢ vÒko esa] D;¨afd mDr çfrosnu n¨"kflf) dk dkj.k@vkèkkj cuk] vihykFkÊ fuf'pr gh çfrdwyr% çÒkfor gqvk & vihykFkÊ d¢ fo#) mi;¨x ugha fd;k tk ldrk & mDr çfrosnu d¢ vuqlkj] ihfM+rk d¢ varoZL= ij ekuo oh;Z ik;k x;k & Mh,u, ijh{k.k ugha fd;k x;k & bl ckjs esa fdlh Li"V fu"d"kZ d¢ vÒko esa fdl dk oh;Z ik;k x;k] èkkjk 313 d¢ vèkhu vihykFkhZ dk lkeuk U;k;kyf;d ç;¨x'kkyk çfrosnu ls djkus d¢ ç;¨tukFkZ ekeyk çfrçsf"kr djus ls d¨Ã mi;¨xh ç;¨tu iw.kZ ugha & vihykFkÊ dh n¨"kflf) vfÒiq"V djus d¢ fy, mDr çfrosnu dk mi;¨x ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 2023 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 609] ¼2023½ 5 ,l lh lh 522] 2019 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 51 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ % ¼2019½ 12 ,l lh lh 460 rFkk nkafMd vihysa Øekad 361&362 lu~ 2018 vuqlfjrA ¼2007½ 12 ,l lh lh 341 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 36 ls 38½
¼8½ gsrq & 'k=qrk & vijkèk esa feF;k vkysiu & vfÒ;¨tui{k dh dgkuh ek= blfy, ;a=or~ Lohdkj ugha dh tk ldrh fd d¨Ã iwoZ 'k=qrk fl) ugha dh tk ldhA ¼iSjk 39½
¼9½ cykRlax & lcwr dk ekunaM & lkewfgd cykRlax g¨ ;k ,dy cykRlax] fofèkd ekunaM¨a v©j ewy lkf{;d ekunaM¨a d¨ vfèkdre çkatyrk ls iwjk djuk vko';d & vfÒ;¨tui{k mDr ijh{k.k esa [kjk ugha mrj ldk v©j viuk i{kdFku ;qfDr;qDr lansg d¢ ijs fl) ugha dj ldk & ;g vfÒfuèkkZfjr djus esa vleFkZ fd lkewfgd cykRlax d¢ ekeys esa] vfÒ;¨tu dk i{kdFku ;qfDr;qDr lansg d¢ ijs fl) fd, x, fcuk n¨"kflf) vfÒfyf[kr dh tk ldrh gSA ¼iSjk 39½
JUDGMENT
Paul, J:- 1. This Criminal Appeal filed under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) assails the judgment dated 21.10.2021 passed in Special Case No.100050/2016 by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) Harda, District Harda, M.P. whereby appellant was held guilty for committing certain offences and directed to undergo the sentence which are mentioned herein-below in a tabular form:-
| Convicted under Section | Sentenced to undergo |
| 376 (2)(i) of IPC | R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer additional R.I. for 01 month. |
| 376 (2)(n) of IPC | R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer additional R.I. for 01 month. |
| 376 (2)(g) of IPC | R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer additional R.I. for 01 month. |
| 506 Part-II of IPC | R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer additional R.I. for 01 month. |
| 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act 2012 | R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer additional R.I. for 01 month. |
With the direction that all sentences shall run concurrently.
2. In short, the case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix lodged a report in Police Station that on 25.8.2016 at around 9 PM, she was sitting in front of her house. The Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) came there and caused a scratch on her right hand and when she screamed, CICL fled away. After almost half an hour, the CICL came back with the appellant. The CICL opened the door of appellant’s house and appellant forcibly took the victim inside the house. Thereafter, both of them sexually assaulted her and that incident continued upto 3 O’clock in the night. The victim came back to her adjacent house and informed about the incident to her mother.
3. Next day, she lodged the FIR in Crime No. 381 of 2016 in the P.S. Timarni, District Harda. The victim was subjected to MLC. The samples from her private part and undergarments were taken and sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). After the investigation, the chalan was filed. In turn, the matter travelled to the Court below in the Special Sessions Case. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. The Court below framed six questions for its determination, recorded the statements of nine prosecution witnesses and three defence witnesses. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
Contentions:-
4. Shri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is assailing the impugned judgment mainly on six counts. The first ground of attack is based on the statement of victim. It is submitted that the victim’s statement was recorded before the Juvenile Justice Board (J.J.B.) by the concerned Magistrate. The CICL was permitted to cross-examine the victim. In her deposition, she candidly deposed before the J.J.B. that no such incident had taken place. The said statement shows that if at all the victim was aggrieved, she was aggrieved because of conduct of CICL. Being CICL, he was tried before a different forum and his case was decided by the judgment dated 27.9.2017 in Case No.82 of 2016. He was not directed to undergo any sentence. If the statement of victim given in the Court is examined in juxtaposition to her statement given before the J.J.B., it will be crystal clear that there are serious inconsistencies and contradictions, which makes her statement untrustworthy. In absence of a sterling quality deposition by the victim, it will not be safe to approve the conviction on the basis of statement of victim alone. In support this argument, Shri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of the victim's testimony without corroboration, the significance of a 'sterling witness', and the reliance on consistent testimo....
As per Section 9(m) of Act, whoever commits sexual assault on a child below twelve years will come under definition of aggravated sexual assault.
Onus of prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious facts to inculpate accused nor falsity of defence could take place of proof which pro....
The court upheld the conviction for attempted rape based on the victim's testimony, corroborated by a witness and medical evidence, despite challenges regarding contradictions and lack of penetration....
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
