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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 42727

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia, Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ
Lokesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CR.A.79/2016|CR.A.86/2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bheemsen Soni, Sharmila Sharma
For the Respondents: Bhuwan Gautam

Criminal liability for gang rape attaches to all members acting with common intention, even without individual proof of physical assault by every member. DNA profiling constitutes an infallible, scientifically precise forensic technique that serves as conclusive evidence for identifying perpetrators in sexual assault cases.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 366 and 376(2)(f)(g) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374 - Appeal against conviction for abduction and gang rape - Prosecution must establish that accused acted in concert with common intention; actual commission of rape by every participant is not required under Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) of IPC - Joint criminal liability is triggered by the presence and participation of the group in furtherance of a pre-arranged plan. (Paras 16-18, 32)

(B) Evidence - Forensic Science - DNA profiling - Scientific accuracy and infallibility of genetic identification when biological tissues are recovered from crime scene or victim’s attire - DNA report provides conclusive proof of physical linkage and complicity when samples are corroborated by medical assessment and witness testimony. (Paras 28-30)

(C) Witnesses - Reliability of testimony - Minor contradictions or omissions in testimony of witnesses due to emotional stress or lapse of time do not invalidate the entire case if the core narrative is consistent and supported by expert medical and forensic evidence. (Para 20)

Facts of the case:
A minor victim was abducted while playing and severely sexually assaulted. Eyewitnesses witnessed the act and identified the perpetrators. Medical examinations revealed severe internal and external injuries consistent with sexual assault. Forensic analysis of biological specimens collected from the victim and the crime scene confirmed a match with the genetic profile of one of the accused, providing a link between the offenders and the offence.

Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence, comprising of eyewitness accounts, comprehensive medical reports documenting physical trauma, and conclusive genetic matching, sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were found to be consistent with the evidence presented.

Issues: Whether the conviction under the respective sections of law was sustainable given the evidence, and whether genetic profiling and common intention were correctly applied to establish the liability of the accused persons.

Ratio Decidendi: Establishment of common intention among participants in a sexual assault case satisfies the requirements for gang rape liability, as the law focuses on concerted action rather than requiring proof of individual physical acts against all participants. Forensic DNA evidence is a scientifically precise tool that, when properly collected, functions as conclusive evidence of perpetrator identification.

Result: Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Table of Content
1. case facts, procedural history, and prosecution story regarding abduction and sexual assault of a minor. (Para 1 , 10)
2. summary of appellate contentions regarding evidence sufficiency versus prosecution arguments on proof of guilt. (Para 11 , 12)
3. legal interpretation of ipc 366 (abduction) and joint liability under 376(2)(g) (gang rape). (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. evaluation of testimonial and corroborative medical evidence proving the commission of sexual assault. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. forensic significance and infallibility of dna fingerprinting as conclusive proof in criminal prosecutions. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
6. adjudication of guilt, rejection of alternative defences, and confirmation of sentencing orders. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)

J U D G M E N T

Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi

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 Chouh

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