Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH GWALIOR
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Jagdish & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1112, 1136 of 2014
Decided On : 12-10-2018
Abduction - Indian Penal Code - Sections 366, 376, 363, 341, 323, 376(2)(g) - The judgment discusses the rejection of the application filed by the appellants under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the allegation of rape, and the absence of independent witnesses. The court held that the delay in filing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was of importance and that the trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the application. The court also found the evidence of the prosecutrix reliable and sufficient to record conviction, and held the appellants guilty of abduction and rape, reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years to 7 years for the appellant Jagdish for the offence under Section 376(1) of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix was abducted and raped by the appellants Jagdish and Omprakash, and absconding co-accused Sunil. The appellants were convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC. The trial court acquitted the co-accused Chetan and Prashant of all charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the prosecutrix reliable and held the appellants guilty of abduction and rape. The court rejected the application filed by the appellants under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
Issues: The rejection of the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the reliability of the evidence of the prosecutrix, and the absence of independent witnesses were the key issues discussed by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in filing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was of importance, and the court found the evidence of the prosecutrix reliable and sufficient to record conviction. The absence of independent witnesses did not affect the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment and sentence passed by the trial court were upheld. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years for the appellant Jagdish for the offence under Section 376(1) of IPC was reduced to 7 years.
1. By this common judgment Criminal Appeal No.1112/2014 filed by appellant-Jagdish and Criminal Appeal No.1136/2014 filed by appellant-Om Prakash shall be decided.
2. In the present case the co-accused Sunil and Harish are still absconding.
3. The instant appeals have been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 19/9/2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Seonda, District Datia in Sessions Trial No. 106/2011, by which the appellant-Jagdish has been convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs.500/-and rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs.500/-respectively with default imprisonment. The appellant-Om Prakash has been convicted under Section 366 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs.500/-with default imprisonment.
4. The co-accused Chetan and Prashant have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 323, 341, 376 and 376 (2) (g) of IPC, whereas the appellant-Om Prakash has been acquitted for offence under Sections 363, 366-A, 323, 341, 376 (1) and 376 (2) (g) of IPC. Similarly, appellant-Jagdish has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 363, 366-A, 323, 376 (2) (g) and 341 of IPC. The acquittal of the co-accused Chetan and Prashant of all the charges and the acquittal of appellants Om Prakash and Jagdish for above mentioned offences, has not been challenged either by the State or by the complainant, therefore, any reference to certain facts in respect of the above-mentioned offences would be merely for the purpose of considering the allegations made against the appellants in the present appeals.
5. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeals in short are that on 10/10/2009 the complainant Umashankar lodged a report that he is residing along with his family as a tenant in the house of one Kamlesh Bhatt. His elder daughter/prosecutrix is a student of class 10th and daily she goes to Pitambara coaching. At about 12 PM the prosecutrix had left the house without informing anybody. She was searched in the market, coaching and school, but she could not be traced and accordingly, the complaint was made which was registered by the police as Gum Insan No.8/2009. Thereafter, FIR at Crime No.134/2008 was registered at Police Station Seonda, District Datia. During the pendency of the investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered who stated in her statement that on 10/10/2009 at about 12 PM she had gone to the market for purchasing the books for her brothers. In the market four persons, namely, the absconding accused Sunil and Harish, appellant-Jagdish and appellant-Om Prakash came there and put her in a four wheeler vehicle. The absconding accused Sunil threatened that in case she raises hue and cry, then she would be killed. Thereafter, she was taken to the house of some relative in Datia itself where her hands, legs and mouth were tied. She was beaten by all the four persons in the house of the relative in Datia. The acquitted accused Chetan and other ladies, who were present in the house, had also beaten her and she was confined in a room. The acquitted accused Prashant was also there. Thereafter, the acquitted accused Chetan, Prashant, absconding accused Sunil and the appellants Om Prakash and Jagidsh committed rape on her and she was kept in confinement in Datia for two days. Thereafter, she was taken to the house of some relative in Delhi where Anoop Bhatt and Rani Bhatt, sister and brother-in-law of absconding accused Sunil, and Ravi Bhatt, younger brother of Anoop Bhatt, were residing. All the three persons did not assist her and on the contrary, she was beaten. In the night she was raped by Anoop and Ravi. Thereafter, she was taken to some unknown place at Delhi itself. Again she was raped by absconding accused Sunil, Prashant and Anoop and she was forced to sign certain blank papers and her photographs were also taken. She was kept in
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
