Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak and Hirdesh, JJ.
Shivraj Singh & Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2013 (Gwalior): against the judgment and sentence dated 20.7.2013 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No.2 of 2013;
Decided on 20.1.2025

Advocates appeared:
Ashok Kumar Jain for appellant No. 1; Vibhor Kumar Sahu for appellant No. 2; A. K. Nirankari, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State; M. L. Yadav for complainant.

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(g) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 389(1) - Conviction for gang rape - Appellants convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine for committing gang rape on the prosecutrix. The evidence of the prosecutrix was found credible despite the lack of DNA evidence, supported by corroborating testimonies from her family members. Minor contradictions in testimony were held not to undermine the overall reliability of the prosecution’s case. The court ruled against claims of consent and false implication. (Paras 3-30)

(B) Evidentiary Standards in Rape Cases - The testimony of a prosecutrix must carry significant weight, and the requirement for corroboration is not strict unless compelling reasons arise. The absence of corroborative DNA evidence does not negate the validity of other corroborative evidences. (Paras 20-21)

(C) Delay in Reporting - Delay in reporting a sexual offense is not necessarily fatal, especially when reasonable explanations justify such delays, which should be evaluated in the context of case specifics. (Paras 22-23)

JUDGMENT

Hirdesh, J: 1. -- Today, this case is listed for hearing on IA No.15440 of 2023, 12th application under section 389(1) of CrPC moved on behalf of appellant No.2 Sheru & IA No.24326 of 2024, second application under section 389(1) of CrPC moved on behalf of appellant No.1- Shivraj for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on the ground of period of custody, as they have already suffered more than 11 years of jail incarceration, but with the consent of parties, this Court deems it proper to hear this appeal finally.

2. The present criminal appeal under section 374 of CrPC has been filed by appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.7.2013 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (MP) in Sessions Trial No.92 of 2013, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment.

3. In brief, the prosecution is that complainant/prosecutrix(PW-1) while being admitted in the emergency ward of Kamla Raja Hospital along with her mother and father, in an injured condition, wrote a verbal report (Dehati Nalishi) vide Ex.P1, stating therein that on 1.2.2013, around 06:30 pm in the evening, Rachna Jatav and Bharti Jatav of her village came to her house and said to go and give a gift on the occasion of Wedding of Girja. After this, both of them left. Thereafter, she had gone to give a gift for Girja’s wedding and after giving gift to Girja, while she was returning to her home from the wedding ceremony, around 07:00 pm in the night, accused Shivraj (herein appellant No.1) caught her in front of his house and took her to the Chhapra (hut) built there. It is further alleged that accused Sheru (herein appellant No.2) and co-accused Shivshankar were already in Chhapra (hut). When she started screaming, Shivraj covered her mouth, took off her clothes and thew her on the ground. Then, Sheru covered her mouth, Shivshankar held her legs and Shivraj committed rape with her. Sheru also committed rape with her. After committing rape, all of them fled away. On hearing her scream, her mother and uncle (tau) Banwarilal came there and saw the accused running away.

4. On the basis of such allegations, FIR at Crime No.10 of 2013 for offence punishable under sections 376(2)(g) and 342 of IPC was registered at PS Mata Basaiya vide Ex.P12. During investigation, medico-legal examination of prosecutrix was conducted. Spot map was prepared. Sketch map of scene of crime was also prepared by Patwari. Statements of witnesses including mother and uncle of prosecutrix were recorded. Accused were arrested. Clothes, swab and slides of prosecutrix were collected. Clothes, semen and slides, etc of accused were seized. All articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.

5. After completion of investigation and other formalities, challan was filed in the Court of JMFC, Morena under section 376(2)(g) and 342 of IPC from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Morena for trial. Charges were framed against the accused. Accused denied committing the offence and pleaded trial. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses including prosecutrix, mother and uncle of prosecutrix as PW1, PW4 and PW2 respectively. Evidence of accused were recorded under section 313 of CrPC in which, they abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. In defence, the accused did not produce any witness.

6. The trial Court, after evaluating the documentary as well as oral evidence convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.

7. It is argued on behalf of appellants that the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court is bad in law and contrary to facts and evidence available on record. All the accused are cousin brothers and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Prosec