SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(MP) 527

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Yusuf Khan & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. - Respondents
CRA 133, 80, 92 of 2007
Decided On : 04-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Shri RK Sharma, Senior Counsel with Shri MK Chaudhary.
For the Respondents: Shri RVS Ghuraiya, Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 376(2) & 366 IPC R/W SECTION 13 OF MPDVPK ACT, 1981] - [FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE] - [ISSUES] - [RATIO DECIDENDI] - [CONCLUSION]

Fact of the Case:

The complainant Mullo Bai made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police on the allegation that she along with the prosecutrix, who is her daughter-in-law, had come to Jorasi Temple at about 01:00 pm for worship purposes. They deboarded the bus on the main road which was slightly away from the Temple and, therefore, they were standing there in order to enquire from the by-passers about the road to the temple. After sometime, three persons came on two motorcycles and asked them as to why they are standing all alone. Then the complainant and the prosecutrix informed them that they want to go Jorasi Temple for worship, but they are not aware of the road. Then, these three persons told them they are also going to the said Temple. Accordingly, the complainant Mullo Bai and the prosecutrix took lift on the motorcycles. The prosecutrix sat on one motorcycle, whereas the complainant sat on another motorcycle. The motorcycle on which the prosecutrix was sitting, was ahead of the motorcycle on which the complainant Mullo Bai was sitting. After covering some distance, the person who was driving the motorcycle on which the complainant was sitting, stopped the motorcycle and requested the complainant to get down from the motorcycle as the motorcycle was not working properly. It is alleged that the moment the complainant got down from the motorcycle, the person who was driving the motorcycle, went towards Gwalior at a high speed. Before the complainant could understand the things, both the motorcycles went away and the complainant continued to cry and shout on the road. She was continuously weeping on the road, therefore, one motorcycle driver left her at Chandrabadani Ke Nake. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was lodged at Serial No.0 and later on, it was registered at Crime No.1/2003 which is Ex.P6.

Finding of the Court:

The prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was abducted and was raped by the appellants. The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant Devi Singh had snatched the silver chain and an amount of Rs.150/- from the prosecutrix.

Issues: Whether the appellants committed the offence of rape and abduction of the prosecutrix?

Ratio Decidendi: The evidence of the prosecutrix is not reliable and trustworthy. The motive of the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the appellants is strong. The prosecution has failed to prove the commission of sexual intercourse by the appellants on the prosecutrix and that it was done without the consent of the prosecutrix.

Final Decision: The appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The judgment and sentence dated 12th January, 2007 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No.13/2006 is hereby set aside.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Common Judgment shall also dispose of Criminal Appeal No.80/2007 filed by Kashiram and Criminal Appeal No.92/2007 filed by Devi Singh.

2. These Criminal Appeals have been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 12th January, 2007 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No.13/2006, by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 376(2) & 366 of IPC r/w Section 13 of MPDVPK Act, 1981 and have been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 376(2) of IPC, rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 366 of IPC r/w Section 13 of MPDVPK Act, 1981 respectively with default imprisonment. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeals in short are that the complainant Mullo Bai made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police on the allegation that she along with the prosecutrix, who is her daughter-in-law, had come to Jorasi Temple at about 01:00 pm for worship purposes. They deboarded the bus on the main road which was slightly away from the Temple and, therefore, they were standing there in order to enquire from the by-passers about the road to the temple. After sometime, three persons came on two motorcycles and asked them as to why they are standing all alone. Then the complainant and the prosecutrix informed them that they want to go Jorasi Temple for worship, but they are not aware of the road. Then, these three persons told them they are also going to the said Temple. Accordingly, the complainant Mullo Bai and the prosecutrix took lift on the motorcycles. The prosecutrix sat on one motorcycle, whereas the complainant sat on another motorcycle. The motorcycle on which the prosecutrix was sitting, was ahead of the motorcycle on which the complainant Mullo Bai was sitting. After covering some distance, the person who was driving the motorcycle on which the complainant was sitting, stopped the motorcycle and requested the complainant to get down from the motorcycle as the motorcycle was not working properly. It is alleged that the moment the complainant got down from the motorcycle, the person who was driving the motorcycle, went towards Gwalior at a high speed. Before the complainant could understand the things, both the motorcycles went away and the complainant continued to cry and shout on the road. She was continuously weeping on the road, therefore, one motorcycle driver left her at Chandrabadani Ke Nake. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was lodged at Serial No.0 and later on, it was registered at Crime No.1/2003 which is Ex.P6.On 14/01/2003, the prosecutrix was recovered from the Railway Station Sheopur and recovery memo Ex.P5 was prepared. The spot map was prepared and after recording the statements of the witnesses and getting the prosecutrix medically examined, the police filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 376, 366/34, 392, 506-B of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act against the appellants and four other acquitted accused persons, namely, Prem Narayan, Ramdayal, Raju and Mahendra.

4. The trial Court by order dated 26/04/2004 framed charges under Section 366 of IPC r/w Section 13 of MPDVPK Act, under Section 376(2) of IPC and under Section 392 r/w Section 13 of MPDVPK Act against appellant Devi Singh, and framed charges under Section 366 r/w Section 13 of the MPDVPK Act and under Section 376(2) of IPC against appellants Yusuf Khan and Kashiram.

5. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.

6. The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Hari Shankar (PW1), Mullo Bai (PW2), prosecutrix (PW3), Nand Kishore (PW4), Dr. Archna (PW5), Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW6), Ramjilal (PW7), Bhikram (PW8), Mahesh (PW9), MA Raghuvanshi (PW10), Nand Kishore (PW11), Manoj Mishra (PW12), Yashwant Singh (PW13), SS Khan(PW14), Subhash Sharma (PW15), Ramesh Cha













































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top