-:1:-

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SINGLE BENCH : RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J

Criminal Appeal No.136/2010
Smt. Jyoti Bai
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh

Criminal Appeal No.1999/2009
Guddu @ Ranjeet Another
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh

For the appellants: Shri Ashutosh Chaturvedi, advocate.

For the respondent: Shri AN. Gupta, Government Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Reserved on 16/12/2017
Delivered on 02/01/2018

This common judgment shall govern the disposal of
Cr.A.No.1999/2009 Cr.A.No.136/2010.

2. These criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment
dated 11/06/2009 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track),
Gadarwara in ST.No.173/2008, whereby learned Sessions Judge found the
appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as under :-

-:2:-

Appellants Sections (in Sentence Fine Default
IPC) stipulation
Smt. Jyoti 363 (two Five years 1,000/- Six months
Bai count) R.I. for each R.I.
count

366 (two Seven years 2,000/- One year
count) R.I. for each R.I.
count
Guddu @ 363 (two Five years 1,000/- Six months
Ranjeet count) R.I. R.I.

366 (two Seven years 2,000/- One year
count) R.I. R.I.

376 (two Ten years 5,000/- Two years
count) R.I. R.I.
Bharat @ 376 Ten years 5,000/- Two years
Bhaarat R.I. R.I.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the prosecutrix No.1(PW/1)
2 (PW/2) (their name and identity imposed by law contained in Section
228A of IPC is not disclosed) who were real sisters and minor at the time
of incident lived at village Hemara, P.S. Kareli alongwith their parents.
Appellant Jyoti Bai also lived in the nearby house. On 01/07/2008 at 3:30
PM appellant Jyoti Bai came to their house and said that let’s go to cut
grass and took them to Reecha Haar, where appellant Guddu @ Ranjeet
met them. From there, appellants Guddu @ Ranjeet and Jyoti Bai took
prosecutrix Nos.1 2 to Kareli and then Bhedaghat by train, where they
kept them for 8 days. In between appellant Guddu @ Ranjeet committed
rape with them. Thereafter, they took them to Jabalpur, where also
appellant Guddu @ Ranjeet committed rape with them and kept there for
four days. Thereafter, appellant Guddu @ Ranjeet left the prosecutrix
No.1 at Gotegaon, along with appellant Jyoti and handed over the
prosecutrix No.2 to appellant Bharat @ Bhaarat, who took prosecutrix
No.2 to Bhopal, where he also committed rape with prosecutrix No.2.
Thereafter, appellant Bharat @ Bhaarat took the prosecutrix No.2 to
-:3:-

Village Chapaner, where he kept her in Mohan Nath’s house and again
committed rape with her.

4. On 21/07/08, Police recovered prosecutrix No.1 and prepared
recovery memo (Ex.P/4) and on 19/08/08 Police also recovered
prosecutrix No.2 from the house of Mohan Nath and prepared recovery
memo (Ex.P/3) and on the written report (Ex.P/1) of prosecutrix Nos.1
MK. Tiwari (PW/8) registered Crime No.305/08 (Ex.P/2) punishable
under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC at
Police Station, Kareli and investigated the matter. During investigation
Police sent both the prosecutrix for medical examination to PHC Karely
along with applications (Ex.P/14A Ex.P/15A), where Dr. Sushila Balia
(PW/11) examined them and gave the report (Ex.P/14 Ex.P/15)
respectively. She also prepared slides of vaginal swab of the prosecutrix
Nos.1 2 and handed over the same to the concerning Constable in a
sealed packet, who produced that packet at Police Station, Kareli, where
Lakhan Singh (PW/13) seized those packets from his possession and
prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/7 Ex.P/9) respectively. He also went to
spot and prepared spot map (Ex.P/21) and recorded the case diary
statements of the prosecutrix Nos. 1 2 and their mother Umabai (PW/3)
and father Bhogiram @ Tularam (PW/4). MK. Tiwari (PW/8), arrested the
appellants Bharat @ Bhaarat Guddu @ Ranjeet and prepared arrest
memo (Ex.P/11 Ex.P/12) respectively. Lakhan Singh (PW/13) sent the
appellants Guddu @ Ranjeet Bharat @ Bhaarat to PHC, Kareli for
medical examination along with applications (Ex.P/5A Ex.P/6A)
respectively, where Dr. Sandeep Patel (PW/5) examined them and gave
medical examination report (Ex.P/5 Ex.P/6). He also prepared slides of
their semen and handed over to the concerned Head Constable Raj Kumar
in a sealed packet, who produced those packets before Lakhan Singh
(PW/13), who seized them from his possession and prepared seizure
memo (Ex.P/8). He also arrested Jyoti Bai and prepared arrest memo
(Ex.P/10) and recorded the statements of the prosecutrix No.1 (PW/1),
-:4:-

prosecutrix No.2 (PW/2), their mother Smt. Umabai (PW/3) and father
Bhogiram @ Tularam (PW/4). He also sent the all seized articles for
chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar
alongwith draft (Ex.P/22), from where report (Ex.P/23) was received and
after completion of investigation Police filed charge-sheet before the
JMFC, Gadarwara, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions,
where ST.No.173/08 was registered.

5. Learned II ASJ (Fast Track), Gadarwara framed charges
under Section 363/366, 376, 506-II of the IPC against appellant Guddu @
Ranjeet, under Section 376 of the IPC against appellant Bharat @ Bhaarat
and under Sections 363/366 506-II of the IPC against appellant Jyoti
Bai and tried the case. Appellants abjured their guilty and took the
defence that they have falsely been implicated in the case. However, after
the trial learned II Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants
Guddu @ Ranjeet and Jyoti Bai from the charge punishable under Section
506-II of the IPC but found the appellants guilty for the abovementioned
offences and sentenced them as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the
impugned judgment, appellants Guddu @ Ranjeet and Bharat @ Bhaarat
have preferred Criminal Appeal No.1999/09 and appellant Jyoti has
preferred Criminal Appeal No.136/10.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are
many contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution
witnesses. Learned trial Court without appreciating the prosecution
evidence properly, wrongly found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid
offences.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted that
from the prosecution evidence guilt of the appellants is clearly proved
beyond reasonable doubt, so the learned trial Court did not commit any
mistake in finding the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence.

8. This Court has gone through the record and arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

-:5:-

9. As far as age of both the prosecutrix No.1 No.2 on the date
of incident is concerned, her mother Umabai (PW/3) clearly deposed that
at the time of incident prosecutrix No.1 (PW1) was 13-1/2 years and
prosecutrix No.2 (PW2) was 14 years of age and Bhogiram (PW/4) father
of the prosecutrix PW/1 PW/2 deposed that at the time of incident
prosecutrix No.1 (PW1) was 12-13 years and prosecutrix No.2 (PW2) was
14-15 years of age. Their statements are also corroborated from the entries
of Scholar register (Ex.P/18 and 19) respectively which was also proved
by Pohap Singh Patel (PW/12) the then Head Master of Govt. Middle
School, Villege Hemara, where earlier prosecutrix (PW/1 PW/2) had
studied. In the entries of Scholar register (Ex.P/18 and Ex.P/19) the date
of birth of both the prosecutrix (PW/1 PW/2) is mentioned as 2/08/93
and 2/08/92 respectively. There is no reason to disbelieve these entries.
From those entries, it is clearly proved that prosecutrix (PW/1 PW/2)
were minor and under 16 years of age at the time of incident.

10. Regarding incident prosecutrix No.1 (PW/1) in her statement
has clearly deposed that at the time of incident she had come to her house
from School where appellant Jyoti Bai met her and forcibly took her and
her sister prosecutrix No.2 (PW/2) to appellant Gudda’s field and then
they took them to Ramla’s (uncle of the appellant Gudda) house, where
they stayed for one and half hour. Thereafter, appellant Jyoti and Guddu
@ Ranjeet took them to Kareli and from Kareli to Bhedaghat by train.
Next day at 8:00 AM they reached Bhedaghat, where they kept both of
them (prosecutrix PW/1 PW/2) for 8-10 days. Thereafter, they went to
Ranjhi, Jabalpur where they also stayed for 4-5 days. During that period at
Bhedaghat and Ranjhi appellant Gudda @ Ranjeet committed rape with
her. Thereafter, appellant Jyoti and Gudda @ Ranjeet took them to
Gotegaon by train. At Gotegaon appellants sent her (prosecutrix No.1)
back to her house and prosecutrix No.2 remained with the appellant Jyoti
Bai and Gudda @ Ranjeet. When she returned back to her house, she
-:6:-

informed about the incident to her mother Umabai (PW/3) and father
Bhogiram @ Tularam (PW/4).

11. Prosecutrix No.2 (PW/2) also deposed that at the time of
incident at 3:00 PM appellant Jyoti Bai came to her house and took her
and her sister (Prosecutrix No.1) to Reecha Haar at Guddu’s field, where
appellant Guddu @ Ranjeet met them. From Guddu’s field appellant Jyoti
Bai Guddu @ Ranjeet took her to Ramla’s house (uncle of the appellant
Gudda) situated at village Cheetapar, from where they took them to Kareli
and from Kareli to Bhedaghat by train, where appellant Guddu kept them
for 8 days. During that period appellant Guddu committed rape with her.
Thereafter, Guddu @ Ranjeet and Jyoti Bai took her to Jabalpur, where
they kept her for two days, where appellant Guddu @ Ranjeet committed
rape with her. Thereafter, appellant Guddu @ Ranjeet and Jyoti Bai sold
her to the appellant Bharat @ Bhaarat at Jabalpur, who took her from
Jabalpur to Bhopal by train and kept her in a house at Bhopal. Thereafter,
Bharat @ Bhaarat took her to Nahargaon by bus, where he kept her for
eight days and committed rape with her. Thereafter, Police came there and
rescued her.

12. The statements of the prosecutrix (PW/1 PW/2) are also
corroborated by the statements of her mother Smt. Umabai (PW/3) and
Bhogiram @ Tularam (PW/4), who clearly deposed that on the date of
incident they had gone to sow crops at their field. When they returned
from the field to their house at 6:00 PM, their elder daughter Ranu
informed that appellant Jyoti Bai had taken the prosecutrix Nos.1 2
with her for cutting fodder. They looked out for their daughters, but could
not find them. On that, they lodged the missing person report at Police
Station Kareli. Thereafter, her daughter prosecutrix No.1 returned back to
her house alongwith the appellant Jyoti Bai on 21/07/08. At that time
prosecutrix No.1 narrated that appellant Guddu @ Ranjeet and Jyoti Bai
took her to Kareli and Guddu @ Ranjeet committed rape with her. She
also informed them that the appellant Guddu @ Ranjeet sold the
-:7:-

prosecutrix No.2 to the appellant Bharat @ Bhaarat. 20 days later Police
also took the prosecutrix No.2 at Police Station Kareli, where she also
narrated the incident to them. Statement of prosecutrix No.2 is also
corroborated by the statement of Ritesh Sahu (PW/9) who deposed that on
19/08/08 he recovered prosecutrix No.2 from the house of Mohan Nath
situated at village Chapaner and prepared recovery memo (Ex.P/3).

13. There are no important contradictions and omissions in the
statements of prosecutrix (PW/1 PW/2). They had no ulterior motive
for falsely implicating the appellants. Nothing has come on record that
prosecutrix No.1 2 had any prior animosity with the appellants. In the
absence of previous animosity or ill-will, prosecutrix No.1 2 had no
reason to falsely implicate the appellants. So there is no reason to
disbelieve their statements, which is also corroborated from other
prosecution evidence. From their statements, it is clearly proved that on
on 01/07/2008 appellants Guddu @ Ranjeet and Jyoti abducted
prosecutrix (PW/1 PW/2) from village Hemara and took them to Kareli,
Bhedaghat and Jabalpur and in between appellant Guddu @ Ranjeet
committed rape with them and appellant Bharat @ Bhaarat took
prosecutrix No.2 from Jabalpur to Bhopal and Chapaner where he
committed rape with her.

14. So in the considered opinion of this Court learned trial Court
did not commit any mistake in finding appellant Guddu guilty for the
offences punishable under Section 363, 366 and 376 of IPC, appellant
Jyoti for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366 of IPC and
appellant Bharat @ Bhaarat for the offence punishable under section 376
of IPC.

15. As far as the sentences are concerned, learned trial Court
sentenced appellant Guddu @ Ranjeet and Jyoti for the offence
punishable under section 363 of IPC for 5 years R.I. (in two counts) under
section 366 of IPC (in Two Counts) for 7 years and also appellant Guddu
@ Ranjeet for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC (in Two
-:8:-

Counts) for 10 years R.I. and appellant Bharat @ Bhaarat for the offence
punishable under Section 376 of IPC for 10 years R.I. It is evident from
the prosecution evidence that the appellants Jyoti and Guddu @ Ranjeet
abducted prosecutrix Nos. 1 2, who were under 16 years of age at the
time of incident and appellant Guddu @ Ranjeet also committed rape with
them and appellant Bharat @ Bhaarat committed rape with prosecutrix
No.2. So in the considered opinion of this Court learned trial Court did
not commit any mistake in awarding above mentioned sentences to the
appellants, which is quite adequate and this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the sentences given by the trial Court.

16. In the ultimate analysis I find no merit in both the appeals and
consequently both the appeals stands dismissed. The period of custody
during trial shall be adjusted towards the period of substantive sentence of
imprisonment. All jail sentences shall run concurrently.

17. A copy of this judgment be placed in the record of
Cr.A.No.136/2010.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
JUDGE

as/

Digitally signed by
ANURAG SONI
Date: 2018.01.03 10:06:53
+05’30’