Ram Narayan Sharma. vs State of Madhya Pradesh.

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the

judgment and order dated 16/02/2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST No.208/2003, whereby the appellant has been

convicted under Sections 376 (1) and 501 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and one year???s RI respectively.

The prosecution case in short is that between 18.4.2003 to 19.5.2003 the appellant committed rape of his own daughter aged 14 years at his

house situated at Dilkush, Aishbagh, Bhopal. The information regarding the aforesaid offence of rape was initially communicated by the prosecutrix

(PW-5) to one Nathu Singh (PW-6), who was an old acquaintance of the family and was considered as grand father by the prosecutrix.

Thereafter an High Court of Madhya Pradesh FIR (Ex.P-6) was lodged at the concerned Police Station. The prosecutrix was medically examined

by the doctors and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present appellant before the competent Court, and the

learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal after recording the evidence of the witnesses convicted the present appellant under Sections 376(1), 506 of IPC

and sentenced as aforesaid.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

Shri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter, and the learned

trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting the present appellant for the aforesaid offences, as in the MLC report of the prosecutrix (PW-

5), the doctor has opined that the prosecutrix is habitual to intercourse and there were no external or internal injury on the body of the prosecutrix,

and as such no opinion regarding commission of rape has been given. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the independent

witness Farhana Khan (PW-3) has been declared hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is also emphasized that the

appellant was the tenant of this witness PW-3 and as such her evidence cannot be lightly brushed aside. Under these circumstances the finding of

guilt is erroneous, which deserves to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.

On the other hand, Shri Manish Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned

judgment, finding and sentence mainly contending that the prosecutrix happens to be the daughter of the appellant and there is no reason for her to

falsely implicate her own father. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix had also written a letter Ex.P-7 to his acquaintance Nathu Singh (PW-6)

regarding her plight which is also on record. Thus, the evidence has been properly appreciated by the learned Judge of the trial Court and the

present appellant has been rightly convicted. Therefore, it is prayed that the present appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed. High Court of

Madhya Pradesh

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Dr. C.S. Jain has been examined as PW-1, who examined the prosecutrix. He has stated that the age of the prosecutrix was around 14 years.

Dr. Vinita Agrawal PW-2 has stated that she had examined the prosecutrix on 19.5.2003 and did not find any external or internal injury on the

body of the prosecutrix. She also found the hymen of the prosecutrix to be ruptured, although she has stated that the prosecutrix informed her that

her father is raping her since last one month. Thus, it stands proved that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years at the time of the incident and was

subjected to sexual intercourse.

Farhana Khan (PW-3), who happens to be the landlady of the appellant has been declared hostile, although she has been confronted with her

initial statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that the prosecutrix had informed her that her father does wrong things to

her. She is also a witness to the seizure of bed sheet, which was recovered from the house of the appellant.

JPS Kuswaha (PW-4) was the Investigating Officer. He has proved the FIR (Ex.P-6) as also the letter Ex.P-7 written by the prosecutrix, which

was brought by Nathu Singh. The spot map (Ex.P-9) was also prepared by him and he also seized the clothes of the prosecutrix, her slides etc.

vide Ex.P-10. He also recorded the statement of witnesses and vide Ex.P-12 he sent the seized articles to the FSL Gwalior.

The prosecutrix has been examined as PW-5 and she has fully supported the case of the prosecution. She has deposed in the Court that her

father, the appellant herein had raped her for around 10-15 times and also threatened her with dire consequences when she refused to cooperate.

She has also stated that she informed about the incident only to Nathu Singh PW-6 and then lodged the FIR. She has also confirmed that she had

written a letter (Ex.P-7) to Nathu Singh PW-6 regarding her plight. She has been cross examined at length but nothing substantive could be

extracted from her examination. She has denied that she had affair with Niranjan son of Nathu Singh, and as her father saw her in a compromise

position with him, in order to falsely implicate her father, she has lodged a false High Court of Madhya Pradesh report against him. The aforesaid

suggestion has been denied by the prosecutrix.

Nathu Singh (PW-6) has also supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that initially when the prosecutrix informed him regarding

rape upon her by her own father, he could not believe her and slapped her but ultimately he took her to the police station to lodge an FIR. He has

also proved the letter written by the prosecutrix to him, which is on record as Ex.P-7. He has been put to such a question that the appellant was

involved with the prosecutrix, in order to falsely implicate him, the aforesaid suggestion has been denied by this witness.

In the present case, the FIR was lodged on 19.5.2003 and the date of incident is said to be between 18.4.2003 to 19.5.2003, the reason for

such delay is anybodys guess. In such circumstances, lodging of FIR after one month cannot be said to be after an inordinate delay. Her letter

Ex.P-7, which is also on record clearly reveals the testimony of the prosecutrix and there is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid letter written by

the prosecutrix regarding her fathers misdemeanor.

In the accused statement the appellant has taken a plea that he had a quarrel with Nathu Singh, who had threatened him to falsely implicate in

such a case, however the aforesaid plea has not been proved in any manner and there is nothing on record to show that Nathu Singh had any

dispute with the appellant.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that present appellant had committed rape of his own daughter, who was

aged 14 years and was residing with him and had reposed her faith in him, but defying every single norm of ethical behavior, the appellant

committed rape on her. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned Judge of the trial

Court.

In the result, the criminal appeal filed by appellant Ram Narayan Sharma is hereby dismissed. The appellant is in jail, he shall serve the

remaining jail sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court in accordance with law.