IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
VIVEK RUSIA, BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ.
Lokesh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh And Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2016
Decided On : 06-11-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common judgment for related appeals. (Para 1) |
| 2. overview of the prosecution case and evidence. (Para 10) |
| 3. challenging the conviction based on evidence. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. review of legal provisions regarding the offences. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. clarification on requirements for proving rape and gang rape. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. presentation of medical evidence supporting the prosecution. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. validity and importance of dna evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. no need for all accused to directly commit the act for conviction. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. final judgment and order of the court. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
Binod Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Since both the appeal are arising out of a common judgment dated 08/12/2005, they are taken up for analogous hearing and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
02. These appeals under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'Code') have been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 08/12/2005 passed in Special Case No.04/2013 by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ratlam (M.P.), whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Section 366 and 376(2)(f)(g) of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'IPC') and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- respectively with usual default stipulation.
03. It is undisputed that the appellants have also been acquitted of the charges under Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'Act of 1989'). It is also undisputed that co-accused Naresh Choudhary has been acquitted of the charges under Section 363/34, 366/34 and 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(g) of the IPC.
04. Prosecution story in nutshell is that complainant, father of the victim (PW-2) along with his wife, mother of the victim (PW-3) have come to his in-laws place in Village Baagakheda under Police Station Industrial Area, Jaora, District Ratlam (M.P.). On 30/09/2012 at about 07:00 pm complainant's two years' daughter (victim) was playing outside the house of complainant's mother-in-law Rani Bhati on Otla. At the same time, co-accused Naresh Choudhary along with appellants on motorcycle bearing registration number MP-09-LK-1570 came there and parked his motorcycle in front of house of his mother-in-law Rani. After purchasing chips from the shop of Ajay, he sat on the Otla and started eating chips. Appellant Lokesh was feeding chips to the victim taking her in his laps. Mother of the victim was engaged in cooking inside house. Appellants along with co-accused Naresh took the victim to the rear side of the house. After sometime when the victim cried loudly, complainant (PW-2) and his wife (PW-3) rushed to the rear side of the house and saw that appellant Lokesh brought the victim and threw her on the cot. After that all the three fled away.
05. Complainant (PW-2) and his wife (PW-3) witnessed blood oozing out of the vagina of the victim. With the help of others, they rushed the victim to the Community Health Center, Jaora, where Dr. Vinod Lahiri (PW-15) after examination looking the victim's critical condition, referred her for treatment to the District Hospital, Ratlam, where she was treated in supervision of Dr. Smt. Manju Singh (PW-18) and Dr. Mamta Sharma (PW- 20). Even after that, looking to very serious condition of the victim, she was referred for further treatment to M.Y. Hospital, Indore, where Dr. Brajesh Kumar Lahoti (PW-16) operated the victim and treated her.
06. The incident was reported to the Police Station Industrial Area, Jaora, where ASI Shankarsingh Chouhan (PW-10) ascribed the First Information Report (Ex.-P/2) at Crime No.333/2012. Vijay (PW-5) also apprised Head Constable Rajendra Sharma (PW-17) about the incident o
Pardeep Kumar v. Union Administration, Chandigarh
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
Bhupinder Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Convictions for gang rape are valid even if not every accused commits the act individually, provided evidence supports common intent and participation.
The absence of direct evidence does not negate a conviction if circumstantial evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of direct evidence to prove the awareness of the victim's caste for conviction under section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste/Schedu....
The court upheld the conviction for gang rape and wrongful confinement, affirming the reliability of the victim's testimony and DNA evidence against the appellant under Sections 376(D.A.) and 342 of ....
The prosecution failed to prove the victim's minor status and the identity of the perpetrators, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The legal principle established in the judgment is that the court may rely on evidence such as DNA testing to establish the guilt of the accused, and the benefit of the doubt may be rejected based on....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.