Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 892
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
ANAND PATHAK, J.
RAJENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 681 of 2017
Decided on : 16-11-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Amit Lahoti, Adv., Aashish Saraswat, Adv.
The judgment emphasizes the significance of DNA evidence and medical examination in rape cases, and the need for fair and impartial investigation to prevent false implication.
Headnote:
DNA Testing - Criminal Revision - Section 376 of IPC, Section 506-II of IPC, Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix alleged rape by the petitioners, who claimed false implication due to a land dispute. DNA report and medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge-sheet was filed based on a misinterpretation of a court order, and the DNA report and medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution's case, leading to the discharge of the petitioners.
Issues: False implication, misinterpretation of court order, lack of corroborating evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of DNA evidence and medical examination in rape cases, and the need for fair and impartial investigation. It also highlighted the potential for false implication in cases involving land disputes.
Final Decision: The court quashed the charges and discharged the petitioners from the case.
ANAND PATHAK, J.
1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C arising out of the order dated 27.06.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Vidisha in Special Sessions Trial No.105/2017 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioners alleging offence under Section 376 of IPC.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent No.2/prosecutrix has lodged an FIR on 13.07.2015 alleging that petitioners have committed rape upon her on 11.07.2015, after registration of FIR Police Authority investigated the matter and on the basis of evidence, expunged report in favour of the petitioners was given. But it is the submission of the petitioners that because of direction of this Court vide order dated 23.11.2016 passed in M.Cr.C No. 10926/2016 charge-sheet was submitted and petitioners were arrested and the Court vide order dated 27.07.2016 framed the charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 376(d) and 506-II of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'The Atrocities Act'). However, the Special Court has discharged the petitioners for the offences under Sections 3(1)(X) as well as 3(2)(XII) of the Atrocities Act.
3. According to learned counsel for petitioners, this case is of false implication, petitioners are innocent and they have been made accused just to take undue benefits. Moreover, there was dispute of boundaries of agricultural land between the petitioners and prosecutrix, resulted into registration of FIR, which has been lodged with a delay of two days without there being any injury upon the body of the prosecutrix. Moreover, the DNA test report attached with the charge-sheet is also negative in which it has been specifically stated that the presence of body fluid of the petitioners could not be detected on the source of the prosecutrix which indicates that the petitioners were falsely implicated. Earlier Police Authorities also filed expunged report, but because of the wrong interpretation of the order of this Court, the charge-sheet has been filed on false pretext since, no offence under Section 3(2)(V) of the Atrocities Act is prima-facie made out so also the offences under Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukesh & Anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Others, (2017) 6 SCC 1 and judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Mulayam Singh Vs. State of M.P., (2017) 1 MPJR 260 in support of their contention.
5. The petitioners also took plea of alibi through medical documents of Ratan Singh and Rajendra Singh @ Narendra Singh who were taking treatment at Primary Health Center, village Varkheda, Jhagir and not available in place of incident at the time of occurrence of alleged incident.
6. It is also submitted that when two sets of documents in the case diary exists then supporting evidence should be seen. Order of charge must contain reasons. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of M.P. Vs. Sheetla Sahai & ors., (2009) 8 SCC 617, Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) AIR SC 366.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State opposed the prayer and submits that no case is made out for interference by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368, Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 and Chimanlal Vs. State of M.P., 2015 3 MPWN 92 and submits that no case for interference is made out.
8. Heard both the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto.
9. Here in the case in hand, petitioners have raised the grievance mainly from charge-sheet and short description of incident, indicate that initially on the basis of DNA report obtained in respect of complainant and accused persons, expunged report was prepared, but the permission of higher Officer w
