Sjjan Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

B.K. Shrivastava, J

This appeal has been preferred on 19.04.2013 under Section 374(2) of CrPC on behalf of appellant Sajjan Singh against the judgment dated 01.02.2013 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Shahdol in joint ST Nos. 134/2010 and 45/2012. By the judgment impugned the learned lower Court acquitted three accused persons and convicted only appellant Sajjan Singh for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 344, 506-B and 376(A) and sentence him to undergo 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 363 of IPC, 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 366 of IPC, 10 years RI with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 376(1) of IPC, 2 years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 344 of IPC, 2 years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 506-B of IPC with default stipulations. The court also ordered that all sentences will run concurrently. Because the other three accused persons have been acquitted, therefore, it will be proper to mention facts and evidence only in relation to the present appellant.

As per the prosecution case, Nandu Singh lodged the missing person report Ex.P-8 on 13.06.2010 in Kotwali, Shahdol stating that his daughter/prosecutrix took Rs.100/- for purchasing of clothes and went to Shahdol but she did not return till evening. The complainant searched out nearby places but could not traced her. The police recorded the aforesaid missing report in Rojnamcha No.914 Ex. P-17 at 20:40 p.m. and also registered the missing person report No. 44/2010. During inquiry of aforesaid missing person report, the prosecutrix recovered on 29. 06.2010. Then police prepared the Panchnama Ex. P-3 and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix Ex. P-7. Upon the basis of statement of the proscutrix, the police registered Crime No. 474/2010 under sections 363, 366, 376(2)(g), 120-B, 201, 506-B, 343, 323 and 402 Ex. P-13.

Prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Reeta Goutam (PW-3) who gave the report Ex. P-1. Police also seized the marksheet of prosecutrix Ex. P- 16 by seizure memo Ex. P-15. The clothes and the slide prepared by doctor was sent to the police station and seized by Ex. P-2. Police also prepared the spot map Ex. P-14 and arrested all 4 accused persons. Appellant Sajjan Singh was arrested by Ex. P-20 and sent for medical examination. In the report Ex. P-12A, he was found capable to do intercourse. The police also recorded statements of various witnesses. The matter further inspected by SDO police, Dhanpuri.

After investigation, the police filed the Challan No. 634/2010 on 27. 09.2010 against the appellant Sajjan Singh and co-accused Bheemsen before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol who made over the case No. 1193/2010 to JMFC on 27.09.2010 and JMFC committed the case to the Special Court on 08.10.2010. The case was received by the Special Court. Another challan was filed against the accused Ramdas Yadav and Nanbai who were arrested on 09.05.2011. The challan filed against them on 13.06.2011 was also committed to the Court of Special Judge. Thereafter, the trial court proceeded the trial of both cases. Previously, charges were framed on 25.02.2011 but on 20.10.2012, the Court amended the previous charges. The Court framed the charges under Sections 363, 366, 376(1), 344, 506-B and 323 of IPC against the present appellant. The accused denied from charges and demanded for trial. Thereafter, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited 21 documents. Defence did not examine any witness. In the examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused took plea that he has been falsely implicated in this case. After concluding the trial, the Court passed the judgment on 01.02.2013. Three co-accused acquitted from all charges. The trial court acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and held guilty for other offences and sentenced him as stated in para-1 of this judgment.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the trial court committed error by convicting and sentencing the appellant for the alleged offences. The prosecution was unable to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Proper marshalling of evidence has not been done. There are various omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No any independent witness was examined. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix was the consenting party. No offence was made out but the trial Court held guilty the appellant without any reliable evidence. Hence, the conviction and sentence both are liable to be set aside and the appellant is liable to get the acquittal.

On the other side, the State counsel has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the prosecutrix was a minor girl and she was not a consenting party. For the sake of arguments, if she was a consenting party then looking to her age below 16 years, her consent having no any meaning. The lower Court after taking into consideration, the entire evidence and after proper marshalling of the evidence, passed the judgment and rightly held the appellant guilty. Looking to his act, proper sentence has been awarded, therefore, no any interference in the conviction and sentence is required. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

The question before this Court arose as to whether the trial court committed any mistake by convicting the appellant.

In para-7 to Para-10, the trial Court discussed the evidence regarding the age of prosecutrix and came to the conclusion that on the date of incident, she was a girl, aged below 16 years. As per evidence and documents, the date of birth is found as 11.08.1994. The incident took place on 09.06.2010 when the prosecutrix was missing. She recovered on 29.06.2010. The appellant did not challenge the finding regarding the age of the prosecutrix. Therefore, it is clearly established that the prosecutrix was a girl below 16 years at the time of incident because her date of birth is 11.08.1994. When the girl is minor then her consent having no any meaning in the eye of law.

The prosecutrix examined before the lower Court as PW-2. She narrated the entire incident in para-1 to 11. In brief, she said in her statement in relation to the present appellant, that her father came to the house in drunk condition and abusing her, therefore, she was sitting near the tree of Mahua. Nanbai came there and took her at her home by saying that her mother will come to take her at about 6 p.m. When the prosecutrix told Nanbai that she wants to go her home then Nanbai said her that she is coming back to verify whether her mother has come or not. After sometime, Nanbai said that the mother yet not come. At about 08:00-09:00 pm, appellant Sajjan Singh came there with two other co-accused who were tied their mouth by the clothes. The accused Sajjan Singh tried to took away the prosecutrix and when the prosecutrix cried, Nanbai said to tie her mouth by cloth. Thereafter, the accused took the prosecutrix with other two co-accused in white colour four wheeler. The accused took the prosecutrix in rented house situated at Suphari Ajadnagar, Singrauli. The two co-accused came back after leaving the accused and prosecutrix there. The prosecutrix further said that in the room of rented house, the accused Sajjan Singh removed her clothes and committed sexual intercourse with her and also gave the threat of life. She again said that whenever Sajjan Singh left the house, he always locked the room from outside. One day when she came out from the house and met some girls then she narrated the entire incident to the aforesaid unknown girls. They intimated to the police by phone. When the appellant came to know that the police is coming, he took the prosecutrix to Shahdol and after taking the money from Babua Singh, the accused with the prosecutrix reached to the Bus Stand. From there, the prosecutrix fled away and reached to the house of one neighbour Basanti who called the mother of the prosecutrix. Thereafter she lodged the report in Kotwali and the police prepared the recovery Panchnama P-3. Therefore, the prosecutrix clearly stated in her statement that the accused abducted her and kept her confined in a house. He repeatedly committed the sexual intercourse and also gave the threat of life.

The defence cross-examined the prosecutrix in detail. But in the entire cross-examination, no any indication is found for showing any consent of the prosecutrix in detail. No any reason of false implication is made out from the entire statement of the prosecutrix.

Looking to the entire statement, it appears that the prosecutrix is a reliable witness and the defence is unable to create any doubt upon the testimony of the aforesaid prosecutrix.

The defence also draws attention towards the statement of Dr. Reena PW-3 and argued that the doctor opined that no any definite opinion can be given regarding recent intercourse.

In view of this Court, the aforesaid argument is not accepted. The accused committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix between the period of 09.06.2010 to 29.06.2010, therefore, hymen was found ruptured. In para-2 the doctor said that it was difficult to enter two fingers in her vagina.

Looking to the aforesaid statements, it cannot be said that the prosecution case is false. The doctor also said in para-3 that when she asked the prosecutrix about the history then she told her that the present appellant committed rape with her between 09.06.2010 to 27.06.2010 at Singrauli. This statement was also given to the doctor by the prosecutrix just after her recovery.

Kiran Prajapati (PW-4) is the mother of the prosecutrix who supported the missing report Ex. P-8. In the statement of this witness, it is found in para-6 that the appellant is neighbour of the prosecutrix and he frequently used to visit the house of the prosecutrix. But witness denied the suggestions that accused used to talk with the prosecutrix and they had any relationship or friendship.

Kushal Singh(PW-6) proved his report Ex. P-12-A and said that in the medical-examination of the accused conducted on 02.07.2010, he found that the accused Sajjan Singh was capable to perform sexual intercourse. PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-10, are the witnesses, related to the investigation.

Therefore, it appears from the entire evidence that the offences were proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and the trial court did not commit any mistake by convicting the appellant for the offences, stated in para-1 of this judgment. The sentence awarded by the lower Court is also appeared to be proper and justified. The trial Court already directed to run the sentences concurrently, therefore, no any interference is required in the conviction and sentence.

In view of the aforesaid, this appeal having no merits, hence, dismissed.

One copy of this judgment be sent to the appellant through jail authorities.