Ramsingh vs The State Of M.P. on 13 December, 2017

-: 1 :- Criminal Appeal No.717 of 2005.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
BENCH INDORE
( Single Bench )
( Hon’ble Shri Justice Vivek Rusia )

Criminal Appeal No.717 of 2005.

Ramsingh s/o Surajsingh
VERSUS
State of Madhya Pradesh
*****
Shri Ajit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant
(through Legal Aid).
Smt. Bhakti Vyas, learned Govt. Advocate for the
Respondent/State.
*****

J U D G M E N T

( Delivered on this 13th day of December, 2017 )

THE appellant has filed the present appeal
being aggrieved by judgment dated 19.05.2005 passed in
Special Case No.195/2003 by which he has been convicted
under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
7 years RI with fine of Rs.500-00 on each count, and in
default of payment of fine, 2 months additional RI. The
sentences are directed to run concurrently.

[2] As per the prosecution story, complainant
Saddu has lodged a report on 12.09.2003 that he is resident
of Village Kiti Khar Ghata and residing in agricultural field
of Ravi Naik as Caretaker along with wife Koni and mother.
On 11.09.2003 near about 10.00 PM in the night, accused
Ramsingh Barela, Santosh Naik, Biram Naik and
Radheshyam came to the agricultural filed and took his wife

-: 2 :- Criminal Appeal No.717 of 2005.

forcibly into the forest area (Ex.P/1). During investigation,
mother Madhubai and wife of the complainant were
medically examined and their statements were recorded and
after completing the usual investigation, challan was filed
before the CJM, Dewas. The charges under Sections 363,
366 and 376 (2) (G) of IPC read with Section 3 (2) (v) of SC
ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were framed against all
the four accused. They abjured the guilt and pleaded for
trial.

[3] In support of the challan, the prosecution
examined complainant Saddu as PW-1 who has only stated
that Ramsingh took his wife to the forest and thereafter he
lodged the report Ex.P/1 and turned hostile. Rekhabai was
examined as PW-2 i.e. the prosecutrix who has stated that
Ramsingh took her to the forest and committed rape on her.
She has not stated anything against the other accused and
later on she has also been turned hostile. Dr. Sushma Rathi
was examined as PW-3 who has medically examained the
prosecutrix and deposed that she has not found any injuries
on the body of the prosecutrix. Madhubai, mother of the
complainant, was examined as PW-5 who has also supported
the prosecution case to the extent that Ramsingh took his
daughter-in-law forcibly and assaulted her son but not
assaulted to her. Thereafter she has turned hostile. Dr. S.V.
Singh Yadav was examined as PW-7 who has examined
Ramsingh and reported that he is capable of doing
intercourse. Other witnesses, Shriniwas (PW-8) and Nabadi
Bai (PW-9) have turned hostile. The prosecution has not
examined the Investigating Officer. Accused Ramsingh was

-: 3 :- Criminal Appeal No.717 of 2005.

examined and who has denied his involvement and who has
stated that he was mediator in the marriage of complainant
and the prosecutrix and 10,000-00 rupees were settled but he
has paid only 5,000-00 rupees, therefore, he has been falsely
implicated in this case.

[4] The learned Special Judge vide judgment
dated 19.05.2005 has acquitted other three accused persons
i.e. Hansraj, Radheshyam and Santosh from the all charges.
The accused Ramsingh i.e. the present appellant has also
been acquitted from the charges under Section 3 (2) (v) of
SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but convicted and
sentenced as stated above. Hence, the present appeal before
this Court.

[5] Shri Ajit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant (through Legal Aid)
submitted that the appellant is a close relative of the
prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was earlier married with
someone else, before the marriage with complainant Saddu.
Since earlier husband was handicapped, therefore, she left
him and did the Natra with Saddu. The Natra was settled in
Rs.10,000-00 and Saddu has not paid the amount and
appellant was insisting for payment of the said amount,
therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case. All the
important witnesses have turned hostile. The prosecution
has not examined the Investigating Officer, therefore,
learned Special Judge has committed grave error of law
while convicting the appellant. The judgment is perverse and
liable to be set-aside. In support of his contention, he has
placed reliance over the judgment of Apex Court in the case

-: 4 :- Criminal Appeal No.717 of 2005.

of Sobaran Singh v/s State of M.P. [2014 SCJ (9) 112] in
which the Apex Court has held that independent witnesses
turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, the
investigation was defective and tainted, hence, the accused
are entitled for acquittal.

[6] Smt. Bhakti Vyas, learned Govt. Advocate
appearing on behalf of the Respondent/State argued in
support of the judgment and submitted that the witnesses
though turned hostile, but their deposition up to some extent
is admissible. Their entire version cannot be discarded.

[7] Saddu (PW-1) has stated that he was
residing with his wife and mother in the agricultural field
and Ramsingh came at near about 10.00 PM and assaulted
him by Lathi and took his wife forcibly to the forest.
Thereafter he turned hostile. Likewise the mother i.e.
Madhubai (PW-5) has also sup;ported the prosecution case
up to the extent that Ramsingh came to the field and forcibly
taken her daughter-in-law to the forest. The prosecutrix
Rekhabai has fully supported the case of the prosecution
and stated that Ramsingh committed rape on her for two
days. She has turned hostile for other accused, therefore, for
appellant her statement is available on record and which
cannot be discharged.

[8] So far as the conviction based on the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix is concerned, the Apex Court
has also considered the same in paras 24 to 27 which are
reproduced below :-

“26. We are alive to the law laid down by this Court wherein it is
ruled that in a case of rape, no self- respecting woman would ever
come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement

-: 5 :- Criminal Appeal No.717 of 2005.

against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on
her. The testimony of the prosecutrix in such cases is vital and
unless there are compelling reasons, which necessitate looking for
corroboration of her statement or where there are compelling
reasons for rejecting of her testimony, there is no justification on
the part of the court to reject her testimony.

27. In the instant case, our careful analysis of the statement of
the prosecutrix has created an impression on our minds that she is a
reliable and truthful witness and her testimony suffers no infirmity
or blemish whatsoever. That apart, as observed supra, even the
medical evidence supports the commission of sexual violence on her
and we need not elaborate on this issue any more in the light of
concurrent finding of the courts below having been recorded against
the appellant holding in clear terms that sign of commission of rape
on her by the appellant stood proved by medical evidence beyond
reasonable doubt. Indeed, even the appellant had not disputed the
factum of commission of sexual intercourse by him on the
prosecutrix because as taken note of, the appellant’s only defence
was that since the prosecutrix had consented to the commission of
the sexual act, no offence of rape was made out against him. This
argument we have already rejected.”

[9] In the light of foregoing discussion, I do not
find any merit in this appeal, which fails and is accordingly
dismissed. Since the appellant was in custody and not
released on bail during pendency of this appeal, if he has
completed the sentence, then he may be released forthwith if
he is not required in any other case.

[10] Copy of this judgment with record be send
back to the Trial Court.

[ VIVEK RUSIA ]
JUDGE
Sharma AK/*

Anl Kumar Sharma
2017.12.14
12:29:41 -08’00’

Leave a Comment

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