IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA nd ON THE 2 OF JANUARY, 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 787 of 1998 BETWEEN:-

DHANIRAM, S/O SUKHIYAN AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PADARIA, POLICE STATION SATAI, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (M.P.)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI B.J. CHOURASIA - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH S.H.O., P.S. SATAI, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (M.P.)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI PRASANNJEET CHATTERJEE - PANEL LAWYER)

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 842 of 1998 BETWEEN:-

SURESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O BALDUA AHIRWAR, R/O VILLAGE PADARIYA, P.S. SATAI, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (M.P.)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI SHARAD VERMA AND SHRI SANJAY KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATES)

AND THE STATE OF M.P.

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI PRASANNJEET CHATTERJEE - PANEL LAWYER)

Reserved on : 21.12.2023 Pronounced on : 02.01.2024 Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA .......................................................................................................

This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

These two criminal appeals have been preferred against a common judgment delivered on 07.03.1998 by the Fourth Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.120/1996, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 456, 376(2)(e) and 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case may be summarized as the prosecutrix was sleeping inside her house in the midnight of 4th and 5th May, 1996, while her husband was sleeping outside the house on the platform. Prosecutrix was seven months’ pregnant at that time. At around 12 p.m. both the appellants entered into her house and threatened her of life if she screamed, first appellant Dhaniram and then appellant Suresh committed rape upon her. In this act, her mouth was closed and her hands were held tightly. On hearing the sound coming from inside the room, the husband of prosectrix woke up and came inside the house. He found the appellant Suresh in action. Both the appellants tried to run away, the husband of prosecutrix had a scuffle with them, but they managed to run away. Neighbour Mukundi (PW3) also saw them running away. The matter was reported to the police and she was medically examined on 06.05.1996. The FIR was registered on 18.05.1996 and investigation was undertaken. Upon its completion, the charge-sheet was filed and in the ensuing trial, the appellants were held convicted and sentenced as afore-discussed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA

3. The grounds raised in these criminal appeals are that the trial Court erred in not giving due emphasis to the fact of huge delay of 14 days in lodging the FIR. Due emphasis was also not given on natural probabilities of the case. The delay in lodging the FIR was not explained satisfactorily, as the explanation given was wholly improbable. Witness Mukundi (PW3) failed to give any credit to the prosecution story. Statements of Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer were believed without assigning any reason. There were material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, but they too were ignored. Different punishments were awarded for the same act in complete disregard of Section 71 of IPC. Appellant Suresh was falsely implicated in the case on account of previous enmity between the parties, but this fact was ignored. The victim in this case suffered no injury, while prosecutrix had claimed that she was gang-raped and her husband had a scuffle with the appellants. The presence of appellant Suresh on the spot was not proved. On these facts, it is requested by both the appellants that their appeals be allowed and they be acquitted.

4. Counsel for the State