Suresh Jogi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 June, 2017

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: MAIN SEAT
AT JABALPUR
(DIVISION BENCH: HON. S.K.SETH AND
HON.RAJENDRA MAHAJAN JJ)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1011 of 2006
Suresh Jogi
S/o Bherulal Jogi
Aged 24 years
R/o Gram Sabalgad Dist Murena
Hal Mukam Juggi No. 1020 Bhim Nagar
PS Janhagirabad Dist. Bhopal.
……Appellant

Vs.
State of M.P. through
Police Station, Janhagirabad,
Dist. Bhopal …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 21/06/2017)

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,Is the
immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse
steals trash; ’tis something, nothing; ‘Twas mine,
’tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he
that filches from me my good name Robs me of that
which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.

William Shakespeare.

Per Seth, J:-

Facts of the case in hand reveal a gory
picture of how a man obsessed with sexual lust
and perverted mind can touch nadir point of
humanity and morality which will put the even the
wildest animal to abominable shame. In their
mating season, even wild animal follows the law
of nature but it is not true in case of homo-
sapiens after the Eve forced Adam to taste the
forbidden fruit of wisdom in the Eden Garden at
the instance of the serpent.

2. Appellant was charged and tried for
having committed kidnapping and thereafter
-1-
ravishing a minor girl aged about 7-8 years on
26th February 2005 in Bhopal, the capital of the
State.

3. Trial Court found him guilty on the
following counts and sentenced him asunder:-

U/s. 363 RI for 7 years with fine of
Rs. 1000/- with default
stipulation.

U/s 366 A RI for 10 years with fine of
Rs. 1000/- with default
stipulation

U/s 376(2)(f) RI for life and fine of Rs.

20,000/-with default
stipulation.

4. Breifly stated, prosecution case as
unfolded before the trial Court, was that in the
evening of 26th February 2005 prosecuterix was
playing outside her house and her mother Nagina
bi was busy in the kitchen preparing dinner for
the family. After she finished cooking, Naginabi
called out to prosecutrix to come home and have
dinner. Getting no response, mother went out in
search of her but did not find the prosecutrix.
All efforts to trace her were in vain; therefore,
she went to Police Station Janhagirabad and
reported the matter. Report of missing person was
recorded in daily dairy and Search parties were
organised and ultimately around 2 am in the night
prosecuterix was found in bushes near 1250
Hospital in unconscious state without a shred of
clothing on her body with profuse bleeding in her
private parts. Immediately, she was taken to the
1250 Hospital, which also known as “Jai Prakash
Hospital”, for treatment. Dr. Zarina Khan MO on
night duty examined her around 2.15 am. Dr.Zarina
was of the view that she was sexually assaulted
and the vagina was completely torn with ruptured
hymen. She also noticed that the victim was
unconscious. Considering her critical condition
of the victim, she referred her to Sultnina Lady
Hospital from where victim was referred to

READ  Samir Sikandarbhai Malek vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 2017

-2-
Hamidia Hospital in Bhopal for further treatment.
After a prolonged treatment and physiotherapy,
prosecuterix pulled through. Appellant was
arrested on 31st May 2005 and same day Dr. Geeta
Rani Gupta medically examined him and found that
he was capable of performing sexual intercourse.
Appellant made extra judicial confession to Dr.
Gupta who recorded it verbatim in the words of
the appellant in her report. After completing the
investigation charge sheet was filed and
appellant was sent up for trial. In the trial
Court appellant abjured his guilt.

5. In order to bring home the charges,
prosecution examined, prosecuterix, her parents
and neighbour besides the Doctors associated with
treatment of prosecuterix during her
Hospitalisation.

6. Prosecuterix (PW1) is an innocent girl
of 7 -8 year old girl. She stated she knew the
appellant as a neighbour. She described what
appellant did to her after removing her clothes.
She also stated appellant caused head injury to
her and then she passed out. It is not expected
from a young innocent child to give minute and
details of the sexual violence. Trial Court
rightly did not discard her evidence.

7. Naginabi (PW2) is the mother of the
prosecuterix. She proved the fact that
prosecuterix was unconscious in 1250 Hospital
with profuse bleeding from her private parts.
Prosecuterix regained semi consciousness in
Hamidia Hospital and murmuring “Uncleji leave me
alone”. She further proved presecuterix remained
unconscious for considerable length of time.

8. Dr. Geeta Rani Gupta (PW3) examined the
appellant on 31.5.05. In her report Ex.P.1, she
found appellant capable of performing sexual
inter-course. She also recorded the extra
judicial confession made by the appellant in
Ex.P.1 which reads under:-

-3-

“eS viuh ethZ ls viuh MkDVjh tkap djokus ds fy, rS;kj gwW tks fd
esjs i{k vFkok foi{k es tk ldrh gS A”

“B lqjs’k B”

“A ?kVuk fnukad 26@02@2005 ds ‘kke dh gSa A ml oDr eSus
nk: ih] mlds ckn pkSjkgs ij cSBk A va/ksjk gksus ij ¼vHkh;ksdh dk
uke½ fn[kh rks eSus mlls dgk pyks viu ?kwe ij vkrs gSa rks eS mls
1250 vLirky ys x;k ogk ij eSus diMs tcjnLrh mrkjs o mlds
lkFk xyr dke fd;k A og csgk’k gks xbZ rks eS mldks Qsdk kfM;ks
esa A tc yM+dh dks wus fudys rks eS Hkh HkhM es gks fy;k] yM+dh
mlh jkr mlds jksus fd vkot lqudsj ogk ij igqps vkSj mls
vLirky ys x;s tgk ij mldk bykt gqvk A tSlk eSus crk;k oSlk
gh fy[kk gS idj lquk;k A A”

C lqjs’k C
Dr. Gupta categorically denied the
suggestion put to her in cross examination that
she forced appellant to make the extra-judicial
confession. According to Dr. Gupta, it was
voluntary and reproduced in the words of the
appellant as told to her. This fact is further
fortified the question 49 put to the appellant
during his examination under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C, which reads as under:-

iz’u dz- 49
¼v0lk0½ Mk- xhrk jkuh xqIrk dk dFku gS fd fnukad 31@05@2005 dks
esfMdks yhxy laLFkku es inLFk jgrs gq, lqjs’k tksxh dk ifj{k.k fd;k Fkk
rFkk mls laHkksx djus es l{ke ik;k Fkk fjiksVZ iz-ih- 1 gS
mRrj : % lgh gS A
In view of the aforesaid positive answer,
the denial of next question, in our considered
opinion, pales into insignificance. But
nontheless, we reproduce question, which reads as
under :-

iz’u dz- 50
blh lk{kh dk dFku gS vki vkjksih lqjs’k us mugs crk;k Fkk fd
fnukad 26@02@2005 fd ckr gS vki nk: ih;s Fks rFkk va/ksjk gksus ij
¼vHkh;ksdh dk uke½ fn[kh ftls ?kqeus dk dgdj 1250 vLirky ds ikl ys

-4-
x;s tgk ij mlds tcjnLrh diM+s mrkjs vkSj mlds lkFk xyr dke fd;k
Fkk og csgks’k gks xbZ rks mls kfM+;ks es Qsd fn;k Fkk A
mRrj % xyr gS A

9. Next important witnesses for our purpose
are Yuvraj (PW4) and Shaukat Ali (PW5). Yuvraj is
the neighbour, who was a member of the search
party which discovered the prosecuterix in bushes
near 1250 Hospital without clothes in a pathetic
condition. His evidence proves the fact that
prosecuterix had passed out. She was moaning
under pain and she was directly taken to the 1250
Hospital for treatment. Shaukat Ali(PW5) is the
father of prosecuterix. He got the information
around 3 am that prosecuterix was found near 1250
Hospital. He therefore, immediately rushed to the
Hospital and found prosecuterix was unconscious
state murmuring “uncle leave me”. He further
corrobates his wife Naginabi that appellant was
residing opposite their home and prosecuterix
addressed him as uncle, who used to give small
amount of money to the prosecuterix. Probabbly to
gain her confidence. He further stated that in
1250 Hospital he noticed profuse bleeding in the
vagina of the prosecuterix from where she was
referred to lady Hospital (Sultnina Lady
Hospital) and thereafter to Hamidia Hospital. He
denied that he had any animosity with the
appellant.

10. Next and the last important witness for
the purposes of the case in hand, is Dr. Zarina
Khan (PW8). From her evidence it is clear that on
the fateful night she was on night duty when
prosecuterix was brought to the 1250 Hospital in
unconscious state without any clothes. On
examination she found that prosecuterix’s vagina
was torn and hymen ruptured with excessive
bleeding (para 6 of her deposition) and victim
was sexually assaulted. Evidence of Zarina Khan
(PW8) coupled with the extra- judicial confession
made to Dr. Geeta Rani Gupta (PW3) in our
considered opinion clinches the entire
prosecution case beyond any reasonable doubt that

-5-
appellant and the appellant alone was the author
of reprehensible crime and he was rightly
convicted by the trial Court for despoiling her
body and virtue leaving a permanent scar in her
mental psychology.

11. The other medical evidence on record is
pertaining to treatment and post operative
convalescence is not of much help for deciding
this appeal.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion we
do not find any merit in this appeal to warrant
interference with the impugned judgment. Appeal
being without substance is dismissed and the
conviction and sentence awarded to appellant is
hereby affirmed. The sentences awarded to the
appellant shall run concurrently. However, we
further direct that the appellant shall not be
entitled to claim and get remission during the
period of sentence of imprisonment in view of law
laid down in
Union of India vs. V. Srihara
reported in (2016) 7 SCC 1.

13. Ordered accordingly.

(S.K. SETH) (RAJENDRA MAHAJAN)
J U D G E J U D G E

mn

-6-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *