IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 9 OF OCTOBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6304 of 2024 INDRA BHAN KEWAT Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri R. P. Yadav - Advocate for the appellant.

Smt. Shanti Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for respondent/ State.

ORDER With the consent of parties, heard finally.

This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.03.2024 passed by 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No.165/2020 convicting the appellant for the charge under Sections 452 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs.1000/-; under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.08.2020, when prosecutrix was in her room with her three children, her mother-in-law was in the other room, accused Indrabhan Kewat came to her house and entered her room. She told that her husband was not at home and he should leave but the accused caught hold, started beating her and committed rape upon her. Her three children witnessed the incident. When she screamed, her mother- in-law came and accused/ appellant fled away. When her husband came, she narrated the incident.

3. The first information report to the incident was lodged by the prosecutrix on the next day i.e. 16.08.2020 at about 01.36 pm vide Exhibit P/1. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. Dr. Pushpa Patel (PW.3) medically examined the prosecutrix and proved her report vide Exhibit P/3. Spot map was prepared vide Exhibit P/4 in front of the witnesses. Accused was arrested and he was also sent for his medical examination.

4. After completion of the investigation, the Challan was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa, which committed the case to the Court of Sessions where the accused was tried.

5. The accused abjured his guilt and demanded trial by putting his defense that there is a land dispute between the accused and prosecutrix's husband and due to the said enmity, the present appellant has been falsely implicated in this case but he has not examined any witness in his defense.

6. The Trial Court disbelieved the defense put by the accused person looking to the in-ocular testimony of the prosecutrix and her husband, supported by the medical evidence and accordingly convicted & sentenced him as all circumstances supports the story of the prosecution along with the testimony of the Investigating Officer Rituka Shukla (PW.8).

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is a case of the false implication of the appellant. It is a case of consent. Present appellant is brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. He is residing adjacent to the house of prosecutrix. It is also submitted that in the light of admission of prosecutrix and her husband, there persists a land dispute between the accused and prosecutrix's husband and because of that he has been falsely implicated. He also submits that prosecutrix has admitted that after recording her complaint, the same was not read over to her. The husband of prosecutrix (P.W.2) is not an eye witness. Incident has been communicated to him by the prosecutrix. He further submits that as per statement of Dr. Pushpa Patel (P.W.2) on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was having menstruation and thus, according to him, rape was not possible during that period. It is further submitted that there was no external injury on the person of prosecutrix and thus, no offence under Section 323 of IPC is made out. Further, DNA report is not exhibited by the prosecution, hence,, it could not be read in evidence. Therefore, it prima facie appears to be a false case registered against the appellant and under such circumstances, the conviction and sentence as directed by the