Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Hirdesh, JJ.
Vikas & Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Govt.
Criminal Appeals No. 887 of 2013, 863 of 2013, 876 of 2013, 889 of 2013, 954 of 2013, 1024 of 2013, 1063 of 2013, 1116 of 2013 and 1195 of 2013 (Indore): against the judgment and sentence dated 15.6.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 615/2012; Decided on 29.2.2024
(1) FIR -- delay in lodging FIR -- mere delay in lodging report may not by itself be fatal, but delay has to be considered in background of facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence by Court of fact. Criminal Appeals No. 1156-1158 of 2005 decided on 7.11.2006 followed. [Para 15]
(2) FIR -- delay in lodging FIR -- due to threat given by accused, prosecutrix could not dare to come to police station for lodging FIR -- when she was suffering from severe pain then only after 7-8 days she stated this fact to her mother -- delay in lodging FIR not fatal. [Para 16]
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 376(2)(g) -- gang rape -- no evidence against appellants that they were aware or had knowledge that co-accused had intention to commit rape -- mere presence of appellants would not establish that they shared common intention with co-accused to commit rape. (2003) 2 SCC 143 followed. [Para 24]
(4) Plea of Alibi -- must be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude possibility of presence of person concerned at place of occurrence -- plea of presence in school at time of occurrence -- in-charge of school stated that he was not aware of presence of appellants in school at time of occurrence -- possibility of presence of appellant cannot be completely excluded -- plea of alibi not proved. (1984) 1 SCC 446 followed. [Para 27]
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 376(2)(g) -- gang rape -- entire statement of prosecutrix is to be seen without referring and emphasizing on single line -- there is mention of names of accused/appellants in FIR -- prosecutrix categorically stated in evidence that these appellants committed rape -- remained substantially unrebutted in this regard in cross-examination -- prosecution has proved its case against appellants. AIR 2011 SC 2677 followed. (1999) 2 JLJ 354 relied on. Bhurji 2007 (1) MPLJ 600, Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2025 (SC), 1972 (SC) 247, 2003 (SC) 578, (1990) 1 SCC 550 and (1996) 2 SCC 384 referred to. [Paras 34 & 35]
(6) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 376(2)(g) -- gang rape -- prosecutrix did not mention name of appellant-A in FIR but mentioned his name after three days -- stated in FIR that there were 2-3 boys whose names she does not know, but she can identify them by their faces -- her evidence recorded six months after date of incident -- at that time, she stated that she knows appellant-A -- it does not mean that at time of incident she knew name of appellant-A -- in cross-examination and additional facts filed after FIR, she mentioned name of appellant-A and stated that she came to know his name later on -- appellant-A stated u/s. 313 of CrPC that after 2-3 days of incident, prosecutrix demanded money and when he refused to pay, she included his name -- but appellant-A neither lodged any complaint in this regard nor dared to give defence evidence on this point -- testimony of prosecutrix reliable -- no hard-and-fast rule that first information report must always contain names of all persons involved in offence -- mere non-mentioning of name of appellant-A in FIR does not give him right of acquittal -- prosecutrix identified him in Court and in identification parade -- presence of appellant-A at time of commission of crime not doubted. AIR 1983 SC 554, AIR 2007 SC 1253 a nd AIR 2008 SC 155 followed. [Paras 37 to 39]
¼1½ çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus esa foyac & ek= fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus esa foyac vius&vki esa ?kkrd ugha Hkh gks ldrk] ijarq foyac ij çR;sd çdj.k ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh i`"BHkwfe esa fopkj fd;k tkuk vko';d gS rFkk ;g rF;ksa ds U;k;ky; }kjk lk{; ds ewY;kadu dk fo"k; gSA nkafMd vihysa Øekad 1156&1158 lu~ 2005 fu.khZr fnukad 7-11-2006 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15½
¼2½ çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus esa foyac & vfHk;qäx.k }kjk nh xbZ /kedh ds dkj.k vfHk;ksD=h çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus ds fy, iqfyl Fkkus vkus dk lkgl ugha dj ldh & tc 7&8 fnol i'pkr~ mls rhoz nnZ gksus yxk rc gh mlus ;g rF; viuh ekrk dks crk;k & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus esa foyac ?kkrd ughaA ¼iSjk 16½
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 376¼2½ ¼N½ & lkewfgd cykRlax & vihykFkhZx.k ds fo:) dksbZ lk{; ugha fd mUgsa Hkku Fkk ;k Kku Fkk fd lg&vfHkqäx.k dk cykRlax djus dk vk'k; Fkk & vihykFkhZx.k dh mifLFkfr ek= ls LFkkfir ugha gksxk fd mudk lg&vfHkqäx.k ds lkFk feydj cykRlax djus dk lkekU; vk'k; FkkA ¼2003½ 2 ,llhlh 143 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 24½
¼4½ vU;= gksus dk vfHkokd~ & bruh fuf'prrk ls lkfcr fd;k tkuk vko';d fd lac) O;fä dh ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkfr dh laHkkouk iw.kZr% vioftZr gks tk, & ?kVuk ds le; fo|ky; esa gksus dk vfHkokd~ & fo|ky; ds çHkkjh us dFku fd;k fd ?kVuk ds le; fo|ky; esa vihykFkhZx.k dh mifLFkfr ds ckjs esa mls irk ugha & vihykFkhZx.k dh mifLFkfr dh laHkkouk iw.kZr% vioftZr ugha dh tk ldrh & vU;= gksus dk vfHkokd~ lkfcr ughaA ¼1984½ 1 ,llhlh 446 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 27½
¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 376¼2½ ¼N½ & lkewfgd cykRlax & vfHk;ksD=h ds laiw.kZ dFku dks fdlh ,dy okD; ds lanHkZ ds fcuk rFkk ml ij cy fn, fcuk ns[kk tkuk gksrk gS & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa vfHk;qäx.k@vihykFkhZx.k ds ukeksa dk mYys[k & vfHk;ksD=h us lk{; esa lqLi"Vr% dgk fd bu vihykFkhZx.k us cykRlax fd;k & çfrijh{kk esa bl fo"k; esa lkjr% v[kafMr jgh & vfHk;kstui{k us vihykFkhZx.k ds fo:) viuk i{kdFku lkfcr fd;kA ,vkbvkj 2011 ,llh 2677 vuqlfjrA ¼1999½ 2 ts,yts 354 voyafcrA 2007 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 600] vihysa Øekad 511 lu~ 2025 ¼,llh½] 1972 yhxy bZxy ¼,llh½ 247] 2003 yhxy bZxy ¼,llh½ 578] ¼1990½ 1 ,llhlh 550 rFkk ¼1996½ 2 ,llhlh 384 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 34 ,oa 35½
¼6½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 376¼2½¼N½ & lkewfgd cykRlax & vfHk;ksD=h us çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa vihykFkhZ&, ds uke dk mYys[k ugha fd;k cfYd rhu fnol i'pkr~ mldk uke fy;k & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa dgk fd 2&3 yM+ds Fks ftudk uke og ugha tkurh] ijarq og muds psgjs ls mudh 'kuk[r dj ldrh gS & mldk lk{; ?kVuk ds fnukad ds Ng ekl i'pkr~ vfHkfyf[kr & ml le; mlus dgk fd og vihykFkhZ&, dks tkurh gS & bldk ;g vFkZ ugha fd ?kVuk ds le; og vihykFkhZ dk uke tkurh Fkh & çfrijh{kk esa rFkk çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ds mijkar çLrqr fd, x, vfrfjä rF;ksa esa mlus vihykZFkh ds uke dk mYys[k fd;k rFkk dgk fd mls mldk uke ckn esa irk pyk & vihykFkhZ&, us naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 313 ds v/khu dFku fd;k fd ?kVuk ds 2-3 fnol i'pkr~ vfHk;ksD=h us /ku dh ekax dh vkSj tc mlus lank; djus ls euk fd;k rks vfHk;ksD=h us mldk uke lfEefyr dj fy;k & ijarq vihykFkhZ&, us u rks bl laca/k esa dksbZ f'kdk;r nkf[ky dh vkSj u bl fcanq ij çfrj{kk lk{; nsus dk lkgl gh fd;k & vfHk;ksD=h dk ifjlk{; voyacuh; & dksbZ iDdk fu;e ugha fd çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa vijk/k esa varoZfyr leLr O;fä;ksa ds uke lnSo varfoZ"V gksuk gh pkfg, & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa vihykFkhZ ds uke dk mYys[k ugha gksus Ekk= ls mls nks"keqfä dk vf/kdkj çkIr ugha gks tkrk & vfHk;ksD=h us U;k;ky; esa rFkk 'kuk[r ijsM esa mldh 'kuk[r dh & vijk/k fd, tkus ds le; vihykFkhZ dh mifLFkfr ij lansg ughaA ,vkbvkj 1983 ,llh 554] ,vkbvkj 2007 ,llh 1253 rFkk ,vkbvkj 2008 ,llh 155 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 37 ls 39½.
JUDGMENT
1. All the aforesaid appeals have been filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) [in short Cr.P.C.] against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.6.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.615/2012, by which, appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:
| Section(s) | Sentence | Fine | Default stipulation |
| 376(2)(G)IPC | Life Imprisonment | 1,000/- | Additional two months R.I. |
| 376(2)(G)IPC | Life Imprisonment | 1,000/- | Additional two months R.I. |
| 506(B) IPC | R.I. For 07 years | 500/- | Additional one month R.I. |
(ii) Appellants-Accused persons (Shantilal Kushwaha, Chetan Prajapat, Vikas Bharti, Vikram Makwana, Ravindra @ Ravi Mandloi, Mona @ Mohanlal Kumrawat, Sanju @ Sanjay Mandloi, Poona @ Poonachand, Rajendra Bhami, Anshuman Wagh, Golu Wagh and Amit Wagh
| Section(s) | Sentence | Fine | Default stipulation |
| 376(2)(G)IPC | Life Imprisonment | 1,000/- | Additional two months R.I. |
| 376(2)(G)IPC | Life Imprisonment | 1,000/- | Additional two months R.I. |
| 506(B) IPC R.I. | For 07 years | 500/- | Additional one month R.I. |
| 506(B) IPC R.I. | For 07 Years | 500/- | Additional One R.I. |
| (iii) Appellant-Accused (Tipu Beg) | |||
| Section(s) | Sentence | Fine | Default stipulation |
| 376(2)(G)IPC | Life Imprisonment | 1,000/- | Additional two months R.I. |
| 376(2)(G)IPC | Life Imprisonment | 1,000/- | Additional two months R.I. |
Since all the aforesaid criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment, therefore, the same are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The essential details pertinent to the current appeals are as follows:
On February 18, 2012, the prosecutrix (PW-1) filed First Information Report (Ex.P-1) stating that the accused, Javed, had been threatening her over the phone and forced her to come and meet him. He warned that if she refused, he would come to her house, consume poison, and harm her family. Eight days prior, on a Friday at 01:00 p.m., Javed asked the prosecutrix to meet him in front of Kalika Temple and threatened her of dire consequences, if she declined. The prosecutrix (PW-1) disclosed the said fact to her cousin sister (PW-2), who accompanied her to have a discussion with Javeda. Consequently, they both proceeded towards Kalika Temple, where they encountered the accused Javed and his friend (accused Tipu). While they were conversing, approximately 10-12 boys, including Vikas, Chetan, Kumhar, Dilip Kushwaha, Vikram Makwana, Golu Wagh, Ashu Wagh, Gopal Panchal, Sanju, Ravi, and 2-3 others, whom she did not recognize but could identify by their faces, approached and questioned the prosecutrix about accompanying them. At that moment, accused Vikas Bharti grabbed and tore the ‘Chunari’ of (PW-2). They threatened to harm both of them. Despite their refusal, the accused persons forcibly took hold of (PW-1 )& (PW-2) and dragged them towards agricultural field, where they removed their ‘Salwars,’ thrownthem on the ground, and committed rape on both of them turn by turn. Although the prosecutrix screamed and tried to raise alarm, but the accused persons paid no heed. At that juncture, Poona, Shantilal, Rajendra Bhami, and Mona Tamboli emerged from nearby fields and also committed rape upon them. They threatened both the prosecutrix of dire consequences, in case they attempted to unwrap the incident before anyone. Subsequently, both the prosecutrix returned home, fearful and unable to confide in anyone. As their suffering persisted, they eventually disclosed the ordeal to their mother, Leela Bai (PW-9), and maternal uncle, Sevaram (PW-4), before proceeding to report the matter to the police station.
3. After lodging the report, the police duly registered the FIR bearing Crime No. 66/12 for offenses punishable under sections 376(2)(g) and 506 of IPC against all the accused individuals. Subsequently, following an investigation a
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to unexplained delay in FIR and contradictions in testimonies, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt - Testimony of prosecutrix is infirm, contradictory and doubtful, which does not inspire confidence....
Conviction for rape can rely solely on the prosecutrix's credible testimony, with proper explanation of FIR delay not undermining the prosecution’s case.
The conviction for rape and trespass was upheld based on credible witness testimony, and the sentence was reduced considering the time elapsed since the crime.
The prosecution must prove an accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and significant delays or contradictions in testimonies can undermine a conviction.
The prosecution's case can stand on the testimony of the victim alone, supported by corroboration, despite minor contradictions. Delays in reporting aren't fatal if reasonably explained.
The credibility of prosecutrix's testimony is sufficient for conviction without requiring independent corroboration when circumstances support her claims.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of kidnapping and gang rape beyond a reasonable doubt due to contradictory evidence and lack of medical corroboration.
In rape cases, the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony is paramount, and delay in filing an F.I.R. may not be fatal under particular circumstances.
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
