Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.
Tijubai @ Omvati Bai & Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2015 (Indore): against the judgment
and sentence dated 9.3.2015 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, District Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No. 422/2013; Decided on 3.9.2024
(1) Age -- evidence of parents with regard to age of child, if supported by relevant document like birth certificate issued by Municipal Corporation, is best evidence -- in absence of above, other relevant factors including oral evidence are to be considered. AIR 1958 SC 143 = 1957 SCC Online SC 84, AIR 2006 SC 508, (2010) 9 SCC 209, (2013) 7 SCC 263, AIR 2008 SC 632, AIR 2008 SC 1696 and (2010) 8 SCC 714 followed. 2023 Lawsuit (MP) 435 and 2007 (II) MPWN 118 relied on. [Para 18]
(2) Age -- documentary evidence -- no documentary evidence except Scholar Register for ascertaining age of victim -- Head Master examined to prove Scholar Register -- he admitted that on date of admission, no document with regard to proof of age was submitted, age mentioned in Scholar Register might be wrong -- he admitted that on his own estimation, he mentioned date of birth of victim in Scholar Register -- mother of victim corroborates his testimony -- no basis of mentioning date of birth in Scholar Register is disclosed -- no probative value can be attached to this document. AIR 1958 SC 143 = 1957 SCC Online SC 84, AIR 2006 SC 508, (2010) 9 SCC 209, (2013) 7 SCC 263, AIR 2008 SC 632, AIR 2008 SC 1696 and (2010) 8 SCC 714 followed. 2023 Lawsuit (MP) 435 and 2007 (II) MPWN 118 relied on. (2011) 2 SCC 385 referred to. [Paras 19 & 20]
(3) Age -- oral evidence -- it appears from statement of mother of victim that victim was born about 25 years before date of statement -- by no stretch of imagination can victim be held to be below 18 years on date of incident. [Para 21]
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 363 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -- S. 6 -- victim admitted that her father committed suicide about 25 years back -- corroborated by brother of victim -- material contradictions in evidence of brother with regard to his own age -- statement of this witness with regard to age of victim not reliable as it does not find support from statements of any other witness or from any document -- trial Court committed grave error in placing reliance on entry in Scholar Register, which is not reliable -- finding of trial Court that victim was below 16 years of age on date of incident is erroneous -- cannot be upheld -- conviction of appellants fails as victim not found to be below 18 years of age. [Paras 22 to 25]
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 366 and 506 Pt. II -- no evidence on record that victim was seduced and taken away by appellant No. 1 -- except bald singular statement of victim, no evidence available to attract offence of intimidation -- conviction not approved. [Paras 27 & 28]
(6) FIR -- delay in lodging -- not properly explained -- dents prosecution case. [Para 31]
(7) FIR -- delay in lodging -- rape case -- family takes some time before lodging FIR as prestige of family and victim as well is on stake -- but explanation given must be reliable -- specially in cases where previous enmity exists between parties. [Para 31]
(8) FIR -- delay in lodging -- rape case -- reason for delay of 9 days in lodging FIR assigned as threat of life from appellant Mahesh to victim -- statements of mother and brother of prosecutrix do not inspire confidence with regard to unusual conduct of victim after incident -- not inclined to accept explanation that after incident, due to shock and trauma, victim was behaving abnormally therefore she did not narrate incident to these witnesses, which caused delay in lodging of FIR. [Paras 31 to 33]
(9) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 120(b)(1), 363, 342, 366, 506 Pt. II, 376(d), 376(2)(N) and 376(1) -- FIR against appellants lodged as counter blast -- clothes allegedly torn in incident not produced before Investigating Officer for seizure -- no signs of scuffle on person of victim or appellant Mahesh -- place of incident in vicinity of house of victim -- admitted by mother of victim that loud alarm raised by victim will be heard in house of victim -- it is not reliable that victim raised alarm but no one came to save her -- no recent sexual activity noticed in medical examination -- sperm not found in vaginal slide, underwear, salwar and kurta of victim -- FIR lodged with undue delay -- previous enmity of high degree between family of victim and appellants -- prosecution utterly failed to prove that rape took place as alleged -- conviction highly vulnerable and cannot be sustained. Cr. A. No. 1313 of 2017 decided on 23.6.2021 (MP) and AIR 2010 (SCW) 4951 referred to. [Paras 34 to 38]
¼1½ o; & larku dh o; ds laca/k esa ekrk&firk dk lk{;] uxjikfyd fuxe }kjk tkjh tUe çek.ki= tsls lqlaxr nLrkost ls lefFkZr gks rks] loZJs"B lk{; gS & mi;qZä ds vHkko esa vU; lqlaxr ckrksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk gksrk gS ftuesa ekSf[kd lk{; lfEefyr gSA ,vkbvkj 1958 ,llh 143 % 1957 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 84] ,vkbvkj 2006 ,llh 508] ¼2010½ 9 ,llhlh 209] ¼2013½ 7 ,llhlh 263] ,vkbvkj 2008 ,llh 632] ,vkbvkj 2008 ,llh 1696 rFkk ¼2010½ 8 ,llhlh 714 vuqlfjrA 2023 y‚lwV ¼,eih½ 435 rFkk 2007 ¼2½ eŒçŒ ohDyh uksV~l 118 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 18½
¼2½ o; & nLrkosth lk{; & ihfM+rk dh o; vfHkfuf'pr djus ds fy, Nk= jftLVj ds vfrfjä vU; dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; ugha & Nk= jftLVj lkfcr djus ds fy, ç/kkuk/;kid ijhf{kr & mlus Lohdkj fd;k fd ços'k ds fnukad dks o; ds lcwr ds laca/k esa dksbZ nLrkost ugha fn;k x;k Fkk] Nk= jftLVj esa mfYyf[kr o; xyr gks ldrh gS & mlus Lohdkj fd;k fd Nk= jftLVj esa mlus Lo;a ds vkdyu ls ihfM+rk ds tUe fnukad dk mYys[k fd;k Fkk & ihfM+rk dh ekrk mlds ifjlk{; dh iqf"V djrh gS & Nk= jftLVj esa tUe fnukad ds mYys[k dk dksbZ vk/kkj çdV ugha fd;k x;k & bl nLrkost dk dksbZ çek.kd ewY; ughaA ,vkbvkj 1958 ,llh 143¼³½ 1957 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 84] ,vkbvkj 2006 ,llh 508] ¼2010½ 9 ,llhlh 209] ¼2013½ 7 ,llhlh 263] ,vkbvkj 2008 ,llh 632] ,vkbvkj 2008 ,llh 1696 rFkk ¼2010½ 8 ,llhlh 714 vuqlfjrA 2023 y‚lwV ¼,eih½ 435 rFkk 2007¼2½ eŒçŒ ohDyh uksV~l 118 voyafcrA ¼2011½ 2 ,llhlh 385 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 19 ,oa 20½
¼3½ o; & ekSf[kd lk{; & ihfM+rk dh ekrk ds dFku ls çrhr gksrk gS fd ihfM+rk dk tUe dFku ds fnukad ls yxHkx 25 o"kiwoZ gqvk Fkk & dYiuk dh fdlh Hkh mM+ku ls ?kVuk ds fnukad dks ihfM+rk 18 o"kZ ls de dh ugha ekuh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 21½
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 363 & ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 & /kkjk 6 & ihfM+rk us Lohdkj fd;k fd mlds firk us yxHkx 25 o"kZ igys vkRegR;k dh Fkh & ihfM+rk ds HkkbZ }kjk laiq"V & HkkbZ ds lk{; esa Lo;a dh o; ds laca/k esa rkfRod fojks/kkHkkl & ihfM+rk dh o; ds laca/k esa bl lk{kh dk dFku Hkjksls;ksX; ugha D;ksafd og vU; fdlh lk{kh ds dFku ls ;k nLrkost ls lefFkZr ugha & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us Nk= jftLVj dh çfof"V dk] tks voyacuh; ugha] voyac ysdj xaHkhj xyrh dh & fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk ;g fu"d"kZ xyr gS fd ?kVuk ds fnukad dks ihfM+rk 16 o"kZ ls de o; dh Fkh & ekU; ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk & vihykFkhZx.k dh nks"kflf) vlQy D;ksafd ihfM+rk 18 o"kZ ls de o; dh ugha ikbZ xbZA ¼iSjk 22 ls 25½
¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 366 rFkk 506 Hkkx 2 & vfHkys[k ij dksbZ lk{; ugha fd vihykfFkZuh Øekad 1 ihfM+rk dks foyqC/k dj ys xbZ & ihfM+rk ds ,dek= dksjs dFku ds flok;] vfHk=kl dk vijk/k vk—"V djus ds fy, dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugha & nks"kflf) vuqeksfnr ughaA ¼iSjk 27 ,oa 28½
¼6½ çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ & nkf[ky djus esa foyac & Bhd ls Li"Vh—r ugha & vfHk;kstu i{kdFku dks vk?kkr igqaprk gSA ¼iSjk 31½
¼7½ çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ & nkf[ky djus esa foyac & cykRlax dk ekeyk & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus ds igys ifjokj dqN le; ysrk gS D;ksafd ifjokj ds lkFk&lkFk ihfM+rk dh Hkh çfr"Bk nkao ij yxh gksrh gS & ijarq fn;k x;k Li"Vhdj.k fo'oluh; gksuk vko';d gS & fo'ks"kr% ftu ekeyksa esa i{kdkjksa ds eè; iwoZ 'k=qrk gSA ¼iSjk 31½
¼8½ çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ & nkf[ky djus esa foyac & cykRlax dk ekeyk & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus esa 9 fnol ds foyac dk dkj.k vihykFkhZ egs'k ls ihfM+rk dks thou dk [krjk fn;k x;k & ?kVuk ds mijkar ihfM+rk ds vlkekU; vkpj.k ds ckjs esa vfHk;ksD=h dh ekrk vkSj HkkbZ ds dFku fo'oklksRiknd ugha & ;g Li"Vhdj.k Lohdkj djus ds çfr >qdko ugha fd ?kVuk ds i'pkr~ lnes vkSj ekufld vk?kkr ds dkj.k ihfM+rk vlkekU; O;ogkj dj jgh Fkh blfy, mlus bu lkf{k;ksa dks ?kVuk dk o.kZu ugha fd;k] ftlls çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus esa foyac gqvkA ¼iSjk 31 ls 33½
¼9½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 120¼[k½¼1½] 363] 342] 366] 506 Hkkx 2] 376¼?k½] 376¼2½¼ढ½ rFkk 376¼1½ & vihykFkhx.k ds fo:) çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ çR;k?kkr ds :i esa nkf[ky dh xbZ & vfHkdfFkrr% ?kVuk esa QVs oL= vfHkxzg.k ds fy, vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh ds le{k is'k ugha fd, x, & ihfM+rk ;k vihykFkhZ egs'k ds 'kjhj ij gkFkkikbZ dk dksbZ fpà ugha & ?kVukLFky ihfM+rk ds ?kj ds iM+ksl esa & ihfM+rk dh ekrk }kjk Loh—r fd ihfM+rk }kjk epk;k x;k 'kksj ihfM+rk ds ?kj esa lqukbZ nsxk & Hkjksls ;ksX; ugha fd ihfM+rk us 'kksj epk;k ijarq dksbZ mls cpkus ugha vk;k & fpfdRlh; ijh{kk esa gky gh dh dksbZ ySafxd xfrfof/k –f"Vxkspj ugha & ihfM+rk dh ;ksfud iV~Vh] varoZL=] lyokj vkSj dqrsZ ij 'kqØk.kq ugha ik, x, & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vlE;d~ foyac ls nkf[ky dh xbZ & ihfM+rk ds dqVqac vkSj vihykFkhZx.k ds e/; xgjh iwoZ 'k=qrk & vfHk;kstui{k lkfcr djus esa furkar vlQy fd ;Fkk vfHkdfFkr cykRlax gqvk & nks"kflf) vR;ar nks"kiw.kZ rFkk fLFkj ugha j[kh tk ldrhA nkafMd vihy Øekad 1313 lu~ 2017 fu.khZr fnukad 23-6-2021 ¼eŒçŒ½ rFkk ,vkbvkj 2010 ¼,llhMCY;w½ 4951 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 34 ls 38½
JUDGMENT
Dwivedi, J. --1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 9.3.2015 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, District Rajgarh in S.T. No.422/2013, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Conviction | Sentence | |||
| Section | Act | Imprisonment | Fine if deposited details | Imprisonment in lieu of fine |
| 120(b)(1) | IPC | 14 years R.I. | Rs. 1,000/- | 6 months R.I. |
| 363 | IPC | 7 years R.I. | Rs. 1,000/- | 6 months R.I. |
| 342 | IPC | 1 year R.I. | Rs. 500/- | 1 month R.I |
| 366 | IPC | 10 years R.I. | Rs. 1,000/- | 6 months R.I. |
| 506(II) | IPC | 3 years R.I. | Rs. 1,000/- | 2 months R.I. |
| 376(d) | IPC | L.I. | Rs. 10,000/- | 1 Year R.I. |
| 376(2)(N) Appellant No. 2 | IPC | L.I. | Rs. 10,000/- | 1 Year R.I. |
| 376(1) Appellant No. 2 | IPC | 10 years R.I. | Rs. 5,000/- | 6 months R.I. |
2. The prosecution story as having emerged during trial, briefly stated, is that victim (PW-4) lodged report at Police Station Suthaliya, district Rajgarh with regard to the fact that on 18.11.2013 at about 7:00 pm appellant - Tijubai came to her house and took the victim to her house where appellant - Mahesh was already present. As soon as she entered the house, Tijubai closed the door and put the latch and thereafter, appellant - Mahesh closed her mouth and committed rape on her and threatened her to kill if she disclosed the incident to anyone. The victim informed about the incident to her mother (PW-10). On 27.11.2013, the incident was report to the aforesaid police station where the offence was registered at Crime No.242/2013 under sections 376, 342, 506/34 of IPC and section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. During investigation, victim was taken for medical examination to the hospital at Rajgarh where she was examined by Dr. Shambhavi Soni (PW-15). On medical examination, as per Ex.-P/7 she found that her hymen was torn. Vaginal Slide was prepared and handed over to the concerned Constable. The accused was examined by Dr.B.S.Shikariya (PW-3) and report (Ex.-P/4) was prepared. The sealed articles were sent for FSL examination vide Ex.-P/12 and FSL report (Ex.-P/1) was obtained. During investigation, the accused/appellants were arrested vide arrest memos (Ex.-P/4) and (Ex.- P/10). The sealed articles received from District Hospital, Rajgarh were seized vide seizure memos (Ex.-P/5 and P/6). Spot map was prepared vide (Ex.-P/9 and P/11). Statement of the prosecution witnesses were recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Magistrate of competent local jurisdiction who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the trial commenced. Charges as mentioned herein above were framed and read over to the appellants who abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and also marked documents (Ex.-P/1 to P/12). On examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed ignorance with regard to most of the circumstances. They have also pleaded innocence and also examined four witnesses namely Jagdish S/o Shankarlal (DW-1), Arun Jat (DW-2), Sumitra Bai (DW-3) and Jagdish S/o Chhotelal (DW-4) in their defence. The appellants have also marked documents (Ex.-D/1 to D/13). They have specifically taken plea in their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. that they have been falsely implicated in the matter due to previous enmity. The learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned herein above which is assailed in the present appeal before this Court.
5. Learned counsel fo
Proof of age – Such person who is supporting date of birth recorded in school leaving certificate has to disclose source of date of birth.
The prosecution must prove a victim's age beyond reasonable doubt, and consent negates charges of kidnapping and rape when the victim willingly engages in a relationship.
The court emphasized the necessity for the prosecution to prove the victim's age and elements of force beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving sexual offenses against minors.
The court emphasized that significant inconsistencies in victim statements, delay in FIR, and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant in a sexual assault case.
The prosecution failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years and that the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
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
