Ram Kumar & Anr. vs State Of M.P. on 23 August, 2017

1 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH:
HON. SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.54/2004
………Appellants: Ramkumar and another
Versus
…….Respondent : State of M.P.
—————————————————————————————-
Shri S.S. Gautam and Shri Vikrant Sharma, Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Girdhari Singh Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
—————————————————————————————-
Date of hearing : 10/08/2017
Date of judgment : 23/08/2017
Whether approved for reporting :

JUDGMENT

(23/08/2017)
Per Justice G.S. Ahluwalia,

This appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed

against the judgment dated 16/1/2004 passed by Additional

Sessions Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Sessions Trial

No.206/2002 by which the appellants have been convicted under

Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with

default imprisonment.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in

short are that on 5/6/2002 at about 6 AM the prosecutrix was

returning after easing herself and on the way she was caught hold
2 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

by the appellants. The appellant no.1 caught hold the prosecutrix

by her hairs and after gagging her mouth, he took her to the

backyard of the factory by dragging and the appellant no.2 was

standing and watching the incident. The appellant no.1 threw the

prosecutrix on the ground and committed rape upon her. After

completing the offence, the appellant no.1 invited appellant no.2

to also commit rape and accordingly the appellant no.2 also

committed rape upon the prosecutrix. The incident was narrated

by the prosecutrix to her husband and thereafter she lodged FIR,

which was registered by the Police Station Malanpur, District

Bhind at Crime No.72/2002 for offence under Section 376/34 of

IPC. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. After

recording the statements of the witnesses, arresting the

appellants as well as after preparing the spot map, the

investigating agency filed the charge-sheet against the appellants

for offence under Section 376/34 of IPC.

3. The trial court by order dated 18/10/2002 framed charge

under Section 376 (g) of IPC (should have been under Section

376 (2) (g) of IPC).

4. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined the

prosecutrix (PW-1), Vishwanath (PW-2), Dr. Vimlesh Gautam

(PW-3), Rajendra Tiwari (PW-4) and R.C. Karn (PW-5). The

appellants examined Bhagwandas (DW-1), Balveer (DW-2) and
3 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

Puttu Singh (DW-3) in their defence.

6. The trial court after appreciating the evidence, which has

come on record, convicted the appellants for offence under

Section 376 (g) of IPC (should have been 376 (2) (g) of IPC) and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a

fine of Rs.5,000/- with default imprisonment.

7. Challenging the findings given by the trial court, it is

submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the FIR as well as

the evidence of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the medical

report. Multiple abrasions, which were found on the back of the

prosecutrix, cannot be said to have been caused during the

incident. The incident is alleged to have taken place at 6 AM in the

morning and since the villagers used to go to open field to ease

themselves, therefore, it is not possible that such an incident

would go unnoticed by villagers. In fact, the FIR was lodged

because the appellant no.2 had enmity with some persons of

village Ghirongi and at their instance the appellant no.2 has been

falsely implicated.

8. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that it

is well established principle of law that where the evidence of the

prosecutrix is worth reliance, then asking for corroboration is

nothing, but adding insult to her injury. The medical evidence fully

corroborates the version of the prosecutrix because undisputedly

the doctor had found multiple abrasions on the back of the
4 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

prosecutrix, which must have been caused while she was being

dragged by the appellant no.1 and when the offence was being

committed by both the appellants. It is further submitted that after

the incident, the prosecutrix immediately informed her husband

and accordingly the FIR was lodged on the same day within three

and half hours, which clearly shows that the FIR was lodged

without any deliberations.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9.1 The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that the appellants are

known to her and they are present in the Court. Her husband

works in Malanpur factory and about 6-7 months back it was

around 6 AM while she was coming back from the side of M.P.

Iron Factory after easing herself, at that time the appellant no.1

caught hold of her by her hairs. The appellant no.2 was

accompanying the appellant no.1. They took her to the premises

of the Iron Factory and the appellant no.1 threw her on the ground

and after removing the cloths, he committed bad work with her. At

that time the appellant no.2 was standing near the gate of the

factory. Thereafter, the appellant no.1 asked the appellant no.2 to

also commit the offence, who also committed rape upon her.

Thereafter, both the appellants went away. She went back to her

house and informed her husband about the incident. Thereafter,

they went to the Police Station Malanpur and lodged the FIR.

Initially the police personnel was not writing the FIR as per her
5 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

information because he was of the view that appellant no.2 is in

jail. When she insisted that the appellant no.2 has also committed

rape, then the police personnel enquired on phone and verified

that whether the appellant no.2 is still in jail or not. When he was

informed that the appellant no.2 has been released from jail,

thereafter the FIR was lodged. The FIR was read-over to the

prosecutrix, who admitted that it was lodged by her and it bears

her thumb impression. The FIR is Ex.P/1. She was sent to Gohad

Hospital for medical examination. The doctor had conducted

medical examination and had also checked her cloths. The police

went to the place of incident and spot map was prepared. The

prosecutrix was cross examined. In her cross-examination she

had stated that she has five children. She is residing in village

Sidhvari. She further denied that she is of loose character and on

the complaint made by the Up-Sarpanch and others, they had

decided to leave village Khaneta. It was admitted that in Sidhvari

she is residing in the house of Bhagwandas as a tenant, but

denied that she had levelled false allegation of rape against

Bhagwandas also. She further denied that the case against

Bhagwandas was compromised after taking an amount of

Rs.25,000/-. She further stated that the portion in which she is

residing as a tenant does not have any bathroom. The other

tenants also go outside to ease themselves. The incident took

place about 2-3 fields away from her house. She further stated
6 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

that she was in menses. The suggestion was given to her that the

father of appellant no.1 is having a plot, which was accepted by

her. She further accepted the suggestion that the appellant no.1-

Ramkumar had given an offer that he and the prosecutrix will

construct on half of the plot, however, she denied that she had

demanded half of the plot from the father of the appellant no.1-

Ramkumar. When she went to ease herself, at that time her

husband was sleeping in the house and he was awaken by her

when she came back. She further admitted that several ladies of

the village go to answer the call of the nature towards the said

direction, but she admitted that she did not narrate the incident to

any of the ladies. She further admitted that Harimohan, Ramveer,

Sughar Singh and Mohar Singh etc. of Ghirongi have also came

to the Court. She further admitted that on the last date of hearing

the prosecutrix had come alongwith them on the same jeep. She

further admitted that there is enmity between the appellant no.2-

Mangaliya and Harimohan etc., as Mangaliya is facing a trial for

offence under Section 307 of IPC on the report of Harimohan and

others. She further denied that Ramveer is having a house in

Govardhan Colony, Gwalior and at present she is residing with her

husband in the said house. She further denied that she is of loose

character. She further denied that some dispute had taken place

with the appellant no.1-Ramkumar as she was insisting that he

should sell milk to her at the rate of Rs.8/- per kg in place of
7 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

Rs.10/- per kg. It was further stated that the police personnel had

started recording the FIR at 8 in the morning, but as the scribe of

the FIR wanted to verify that whether the appellant no.2-

Mangaliya has been released from jail or not, therefore, he took

1½ hours to complete the FIR. The FIR was concluded by 9:30 in

the morning. She further admitted that the said explanation is not

mentioned in her case diary statement Ex.D/1. She further denied

that the appellant no.2-Mangaliya was not present in the village

and he had not committed rape. She further admitted that from the

place of incident while going back to her house she neither raised

any alarm nor informed anybody about the incident.

9.2 Vishwanath (PW-2) is the husband of the prosecutrix. He

has also supported the evidence of his wife (PW-1). It is stated by

this witness that he was awaken by prosecutrix (PW-1), at about

6-6:30 in the morning and informed that she had gone towards

M.P. Iron Factory to ease herself and while she was coming back,

the appellants Ramkumar and Mangaliya have committed rape

upon her. This witness was cross-examined in detail by the

appellants. This witness is a person to whom the incident was

narrated by the prosecutrix. Nothing could be elicited from the

cross-examination of this witness, which may indicate that the

incident was not narrated by the prosecutrix (PW-1) to him.

9.3 Dr. Vimilesh Gautam (PW-3) has medically examined the

prosecutrix and in medical examination the doctor had found
8 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

multiple abrasions on the right side of the back and left side of the

back of the prosecutrix, although she did not find any injury on

her private parts. The injuries were found to be caused within 12

hours and were multiple in nature. The vaginal slides were

prepared. The MLC report of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is Ex.P/3.

This witness could not give any specific opinion about commission

of rape. This witness was cross-examined by the appellants. This

witness further specifically stated that it can not be said that in

case of gang rape whether any injury would be caused on the

private part of the prosecutrix or not. She further stated that the

prosecutrix was a married lady having five children.

9.4 Rajendra Tiwari (PW-4) has stated that Constable Diwakar

Singh had brought one sealed packet, sealed specimen and two

slides, which were seized by seizure memo. Ex.P/4.

9.5 R.C. Karn (PW-5) is the Investigating Officer. He has stated

that after receiving the FIR, he prepared the spot map and

recorded the statements of Vishwanath. On 16/7/2002 the

appellant-Ramkumar was arrested and his arrest memo is Ex.P/5

and on 23/9/2002 the appellant no.2-Mangaliya was arrested vide

arrest memo. Ex.P/6. In cross-examination this witness has

admitted that after an incident of causing gunshot injury to

Kehsav, the family of Mangaliya had left the village. He further

stated that he got the case diary on 6/6/2002 and he tried to

search for the prosecutrix, but he could not meet with her till
9 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

15/6/2002. On 16/6/2002 she came from Gwalior alongwith her

husband, but he does not know that whether the prosecutrix was

residing in the house of Ramveer or not. He further admitted that

from 6/6/2002 till 9/6/2002 he did not search for the prosecutrix.

He searched for the prosecutrix on 16/6/2002 and in the

meanwhile he did not mention in the police case diary about the

search of the prosecutrix. He did not find the broken pieces of

bangles. He further admitted that when he received the FIR, it was

accompanied by the statement of the prosecutrix. He further

admitted that after the incident, the prosecutrix and her husband

are not residing in village Sidhvari. He further stated that the place

of incident is situated at a distance from the main road and even if

somebody shouts for help from the place of incident, the voice

would not reach to the main road.

9.6 Bhagwandas (DW-1) is the landlord of the prosecutrix. He

has stated that the character of the prosecutrix was not good. She

was residing in her house as a tenant and at that time he was

informed by one Sayeed that the prosecutrix had levelled an

allegation of rape against him, but the same was resolved by

Ramswaroop Patel. Thereafter, he ousted the prosecutrix from his

house. In cross-examination he admitted that Sayeed is still alive

and is residing in the village, whereas Ramswaroop Patel has

expired. It was submitted that he has been brought by Dhaniram

for evidence, but he did not receive any summon from the Court.

10 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

9.7 Balveer (DW-2) has stated that the appellant no.2-Mangaliya

is afraid of Harimohan etc. About 1½ years back while he was

going to the Court alongwith Mangaliya, at that time he was

arrested on the way by the police on the allegation that appellant

no.2 had committed rape.

9.8 Puttu Singh (DW-3) has stated that the appellant no.1-

Ramkumar is his son and he has a plot in village Sidhvari and the

prosecutrix used to ask him to give half of the plot and she had

also threatened that she would get the plot.

9.9 From the appreciation of evidence, which has come on

record, it is clear that the case is based on the solitary evidence of

the prosecutrix (PW-1). The Supreme Court in the case of State

of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny reported

in (2017) 2 SCC 51 has held as under:-

“31. After thorough analysis of all relevant
and attendant factors, we are of the opinion that
none of the grounds, on which the High Court has
cleared the respondent, has any merit. By now it
is well settled that the testimony of a victim in
cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there
are compelling reasons which necessitate looking
for corroboration of a statement, the courts
should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of
the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the
accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire
confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement
before relying upon the same as a rule, in such
cases, would literally amount to adding insult to
injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus,
to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that
the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her
evidence can be acted upon without
corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal
than an injured witness does. If the court finds it
11 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

difficult to accept her version, it may seek
corroboration from some evidence which lends
assurance to her version. To insist on
corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases,
is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of
another with an accomplice to a crime and
thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding
insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of
rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated
in material particulars, as in the case of an
accomplice to a crime. Why should the evidence
of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or
sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of
spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt,
disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of
corroboration has no substance (See Bhupinder
Sharma v. State of H.P., (2003) 8 SCC 551).
Notwithstanding this legal position, in the instant
case, we even find enough corroborative material
as well, which is discussed hereinabove.”

The Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Vs. State of

Rajasthan reported in (2006) 3 SCC 771 has held as under:-

“11. In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the
testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the
absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to
injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-
permissive society of India would be extremely
reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely
to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She
would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised
by society and when in the face of these factors the
crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt assurance that
the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. Just as a
witness who has sustained an injury, which is not
shown or believed to be self-inflicted, is the best
witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate
the real offender, the evidence of a victim of sexual
offence is entitled to great weight, notwithstanding the
absence of corroboration. A woman or a girl who is
raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not the
sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. The
observations of Vivian Bose, J. in Rameshwar v. State
of Rajasthan, 1952 SCR 377 were: (SCR p. 386)
“The rule, which according to the cases has
hardened into one of law, is not that
12 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

corroboration is essential before there can be a
conviction but that the necessity of corroboration,
as a matter of prudence, except where the
circumstances make it safe to dispense with it,
must be present to the mind of the judge,…”

In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmeet Singh reported

in (1996) 2 SCC 384 the Supreme Court has held as under:-

“8. ………….Therefore her informing her mother
only on return to the parental house and no one
else at the examination centre prior thereto is in
accord with the natural human conduct of a female.
The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain
alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-
respecting woman would come forward in a court
just to make a humiliating statement against her
honour such as is involved in the commission of
rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation,
supposed considerations which have no material
effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or
even discrepancies in the statement of the
prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies
are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to
throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
The inherent bashfulness of the females and the
tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression
are factors which the courts should not overlook.

The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital
and unless there are compelling reasons which
necessitate looking for corroboration of her
statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act
on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone
to convict an accused where her testimony inspires
confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking
corroboration of her statement before relying upon
the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to
adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of
a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual
molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or
suspicion? The court while appreciating the
evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some
assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial
conscience, since she is a witness who is
interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by
her, but there is no requirement of law to insist
upon corroboration of her statement to base
13 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim
of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the
evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is
even more reliable. Just as a witness who has
sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is
not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a
good witness in the sense that he is least likely to
shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a
sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence
of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative
evidence is not an imperative component of judicial
credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a
condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of
the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a
guidance of prudence under given circumstances.
It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl
subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to
the crime but is a victim of another person’s lust
and it is improper and undesirable to test her
evidence with a certain amount of suspicion,
treating her as if she were an accomplice.

Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of
facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and
not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the
shape of rule of law is introduced through a new
form of testimonial tyranny making justice a
casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and
insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole,
the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime
strikes the judicial mind as probable. In State of
Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain,
(1990) 1 SCC 550 Ahmadi, J. (as the Lord Chief
Justice then was) speaking for the Bench
summarised the position in the following words:
(SCC p. 559, para 16)
“A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be
put on a par with an accomplice. She is in
fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act
nowhere says that her evidence cannot be
accepted unless it is corroborated in
material particulars. She is undoubtedly a
competent witness under Section 118 and
her evidence must receive the same weight
as is attached to an injured in cases of
physical violence. The same degree of care
and caution must attach in the evaluation of
her evidence as in the case of an injured
complainant or witness and no more. What
14 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

is necessary is that the court must be alive
to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing
with the evidence of a person who is
interested in the outcome of the charge
levelled by her. If the court keeps this in
mind and feels satisfied that it can act on
the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no
rule of law or practice incorporated in the
Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to
Section 114 which requires it to look for
corroboration. If for some reason the court
is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the
testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for
evidence which may lend assurance to her
testimony short of corroboration required in
the case of an accomplice. The nature of
evidence required to lend assurance to the
testimony of the prosecutrix must
necessarily depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. But if a
prosecutrix is an adult and of full
understanding the court is entitled to base a
conviction on her evidence unless the same
is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If
the totality of the circumstances appearing
on the record of the case disclose that the
prosecutrix does not have a strong motive
to falsely involve the person charged, the
court should ordinarily have no hesitation in
accepting her evidence.”

10. Thus, it is clear that if the evidence of the prosecutrix is

reliable, then the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to

record conviction. However, in the present case the allegations

are that the prosecutrix was thrown on an uneven place and rape

was committed upon her. The doctor has found several abrasions

on both sides of her back. Presence of external injury is clearly

suggestive of the fact that rape was committed on an uneven

place. Thus, it cannot be said that the evidence of the prosecutrix

is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Non-sustaining of
15 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

injury on the private part by itself cannot be a ground to dislodge

the ocular evidence. It is further submitted by the counsel for the

appellants that while going back from the place of incident, the

prosecutrix did not inform the incident to the ladies, who were

gong to ease themselves. Merely because the prosecutrix did not

inform the ladies, who were going to ease themselves, would not

be sufficient to disbelieve her statement. The only thing which was

expected of the prosecutrix was to inform her husband or the

family members about the incident, which she did immediately

after going back to the house. The FIR was lodged immediately

thereafter. The defence taken by the appellants for their false

implication is not probable. The appellant no.2-Ramswaroop had

taken two defences, firstly that he has enmity with Harimohan,

Ramveer etc. and he is facing trial on their report and the

prosecutrix has lodged a false report at their instance and

secondly that as the father of the appellant no.1-Ramkumar had

refused to share his plot with the prosecutrix, therefore, a false

FIR has been lodged. So far as the false implication of appellant

no.1-Ramkumar at the instance of Harimohan and others is

concerned, suffice it to say that no lady would put her pride and

dignity at stake by making false allegation of rape only because

the accused had enmity with some other persons with whom the

prosecutrix has no concern. Similarly a suggestion was given by

the appellant no.1-Ramkumar to the prosecutrix in her cross-

16 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

examination that the appellant no.1 had offered that he would

share the plot of his father with the prosecutrix and would raise

construction on half of the plot. The evidence of Puttu Singh (DW-

3) that the prosecutrix was demanding half of the plot and as he

refused to share his plot with the prosecutrix, therefore, a false

FIR has been lodged, cannot be accepted. Why the prosecutrix

would demand half of the plot has not been clarified. So far as the

loose character of the prosecutrix is concerned, the appellants

have examined Bhagwandas (DW-1), who has stated that he was

the landlord of the prosecutrix in village Sidhvari and he was

informed by one Sayeed that the prosecutrix had levelled

allegation of rape against this witness and the said case has

already been resolved by Ramswaroop Patel. The evidence of this

witness cannot be accepted because according to this witness he

was told by one Sayeed that the prosecutrix had levelled an

allegation of rape against him. Why Ramswaroop Patel would

resolve the dispute has also not been clarified by this witness.

Sayeed is alive, but still he was not examined by the appellants,

therefore, it is clear that the defence, which has been taken by the

appellants, is not probable and cannot be accepted. Further,

Bhagwandas (DW-1) has also not stated that his house was

having bathroom, which clearly shows that the contention of the

prosecutrix that there was no bathroom in the rented premises

and all the tenants were required to go outside to ease
17 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

themselves is correct and considering the totality of the

circumstances, it appears that the prosecutrix went to an open

place in order to ease herself at 6 AM and while she was coming

back, she was subjected to rape by the appellants and she

informed the incident to her husband immediately after coming

back to her house. The FIR was lodged within three and half

hours of the incident and multiple abrasions were found on the

back of the prosecutrix. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of the

prosecutrix is worth reliance and accordingly it is held that the

appellants are guilty of committing rape upon the prosecutrix.

Accordingly, they are held guilty for committing offence under

Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC (376 (g) of IPC as mentioned by the trial

court).

10.1 The judgment dated 16/1/2004 passed by the trial court in

S.T. No.206/2002 is hereby affirmed.

10.2 So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the

minimum sentence provided for offence under Section 376 (2) (g)

of IPC is rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. The trial court has

awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years.

Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years

awarded by the trial court does not call for any interference and,

hence, the sentence awarded by the trial court is also affirmed.

10.3 The appellant no.1-Ramkumar is on bail, his bail bonds and

surety bonds are cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the
18 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

trial court immediately to undergo the remaining jail sentence. The

appellant no.2 was also initially granted bail, however, as he

jumped bail, therefore, he is in jail.

The appeal, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Arun*
19 Criminal Appeal No.54/2004
[Ramkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.]

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR,
BENCH AT GWALIOR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.54/2004

………Appellants: Ramkumar and another
Versus
…….Respondent : State of M.P.

JUDGMENT post for 23/08/2017

(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
22/08/2017

Leave a Comment

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