SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dinesh Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 January, 2018

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-1672-2010
(DINESH KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

21
Jabalpur, Dated : 25-01-2018
The appellants have preferred this criminal appeal
under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. challenging the
conviction and sentence passed on 13.08.2010 by Special
Judge (under the S.C. S.T. POA Act, 1989) Dindori in

sh
Special Case No. 06/2009, wherein the appellants have been

e
convicted for offence under Section 342 of the IPC and

ad
sentenced to six months R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/- and for

Pr
offence under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC R.I. for 10 years with
fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in lieu of fine they are to undergo one
a
hy

month R.I. six months R.I., each.

2. Before the learned Trial Court the factual matrix of the
ad

prosecution case was that the prosecutirx belong to Duliya by
M

caste which false under the “ST category”. On
29.05.2009 at about 3:00 p.m., the prosecutrix aged about 30
of

years, had gone to the house of the appellant No. 1, Dinesh
rt

Kumar to ask for her wages. The appellant No. 1, Dinesh
ou

Kumar and his associate appellant No. 2, Indrabhan were
present there. Appellant No. 2 forcible quite her and pushed
C

into the room. The appellant No. 1, Dinesh Kumar then
h

locked the room from the outside and fled away. Appellant
ig

No. 2, Indrabhan committed rape with the prosecutrix by
H

gagging her mouth with a cloth. Witnesses is Suna, Panne
Lal, Dayal, Sukarit, Kuvarlal came there and opened the door
and the prosecutrix was taken out. She narrated the incident
to the witness. As it was dark and she had no conveyance
convenience, she could not lodge report on the same day. On
the following day she lodged report Ex. P/2 at the Police
Station. On the basis of, which investigation was initiated.
The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination After
completing the investigation charge sheet has been filed.

3. On the committal of the case to the Special Court
under the SC and ST (Protection of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
(for brevity Act, 1989) Dindori charges have been framed
for offence under Sections 342, 376(1), 376(2)(g) of IPC,
and Section 3(1)(2) and 3(2)(5) of Act 1989. The accused
persons abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.

4. The appellants challenged the judgment impugned on
several grounds, which include that the Courts below has
failed to appreciate that the prosecutrix is a consenting

sh
party. She went to the house of Dinesh Kumar by her

e
own and stayed with him for about four hours. When her

ad
husband came frome other villager,.she was found with

Pr
appellant No. 2 in the room. The trial Court also failed to
appreciate that the prosecutrix has admitted in her
a
cross-examination that a Panchayat Meeting was called
hy

and after the meeting her husband refused to keep her
ad

and thereafter she went with the appellant No. 2 to his
M

house.

5. The Trial Court has also failed to see that the
of

prosecutrix herself admitted that on the date of incident
she did not lodge any report against the appellants. After
rt

compelling her husband, she lodged the report on the
ou

next date, but the delay has not been explained. They did
C

not inform her husband about the incident, when she was
h

found in the house of appellant No. 1, Dinesh Kumar,
ig

that Sexual intercourse was committed by the appellant
H

No. 2. Sukratlal (PW-4) has not supported to the
prosecution story. Appellant No. 1, Dinesh Kumar has not
committed any sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix,
therefore, claiming of charges under Section 376 (2)(g),
the medical report of the prosecutrix also does not
support the prosecution story. The defence witnesses
Sumrat Das (DW-1) and Deodas (DW-2) both have stated
about the consent of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the
impugned judgment is not good in the eyes of law and is
therefore, liable to be set aside.

6. Per Contra, the learned Government Advocate
opposed the contention and submitted that the
statements of the prosecutirx and the witnesses clearly
established the commission of offences and therefore,
the judgment impugned do not suffer any irregularity.

7. Considered the submission.

8. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel
for the appellant has submitted that she do not want to
argue on the merits but she has made her submission on

sh
the sentenced part. According to her, the appellant,

e
Dinesh Kumar is only locked the door from out side and

ad
left the place, therefore allegedly facilitated the

Pr
appellant No. 2, Indrabhan for committing the offenc. It
is argued that even if the whole prosecution story is
a
taken as it is appellant No. 1, Dinesh Kumar has not
hy

committed any offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the
ad

IPC. He can, be at the most convicted for offence under
M

Section 342 of the IPC. In this regard she further claimed
that the appellant No. 1, Dinesh Kumar remained in
of

custody for 4 years,11 months and 28 days his remission
period is 2 years, 2 months and 17 days, therefore, the
rt

total custody periods is therefore, 7 years, 2 months and
ou

15 days.

C

9. As regarding the appellant No. 2, Indrabhan counsel
h

for the appellants submits that Indrabhan remained in
ig

custody for 7 years, 3 months and 19 days. The remission
H

period is 2 years, 11 months and 13 days, therefore, the
total custody periods is 10 years, 3 months and 2 days.
On 20.09.2017 as calculated by the Office of
Superintendent of Central Jail, Jabalpur. It is further
claimed that the appellant No. 2, Indrabhan is still in
custody, therefore, 3 months period has been elapsed in
between.

10. She, argued that the appellant No. 1, Dinesh Kumar
has been granted bail earlier and appellant No. 2
Indrabhan is in custody and he be sentenced to for the
period already remained in jail.

11. Keeping in view the above submissions and the facts
available on the record, it would be appropriate to hold that
appellant No. 1- Dinesh Kumar, the accused responsible to
close the door from the outside, consequent to which
appellant No. 2-Indrabhan committed sexual intercourse with
the prosequetrix, has been held proved.

12. The appeal, therefore, dis-allowed so far as the
conviction is concerned.

sh

13. On the point of sentence considered the submission

e
made by the counsel for appellants. Appellant No. 1-

ad
Dinesh Kumar has confined the prosecutrix, therefore, he

Pr
is convicted for offence under sentence 342 of the IPC
and sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment and
a
fine of Rs. 500/- failing to deposited the fine would entail
hy

him to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one
ad

month. Because of the common intention and shutting
M

the prosecutrix inside the room, appellant No. 2-
Indrabhan has committed the crime. Hence the appellant
of

No.1-Dinesh Kumar has cooperated and facilitated the
co-appellant No.2– Indrabhan to commit the
rt

crime, therefore, the appellant No.1- Dinesh Kumar is
ou

held reliable for offence under Section 376 read with the
C

Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to seven years
h

rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in lieu
ig

of fine he has to undergo additional sentence of three
H

months rigorous imprisonment.

14. As regarding appellant No.2-Indrabhan he is the
main culprit and the person responsible for committing
the crime of rape with the prosecutrix. He is held liable
for offence under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the
IPC and sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs. 500/- failing to deposited the fine would
entail him to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for
one month.

15. The appellant No. 2 Indrabhan is therefore, is also
convicted 376(2) of the IPC and sentenced to ten years
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and if the
amount of fine if not deposited he has to undergo
additional R.I. for six months.

16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed only to the
extend that appellant No. 1-Dinesh Kumar is acquitted
for offence under Section 376(2)(g) and convicted under
Section 376(2) read with Section 34 of the IPC and his
sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of

sh
Rs. 5000/- and in lieu of fine rigorous imprisonment for

e
six months is reduce to rigorous imprisonment for 7

ad
(seven) years with fine of Rs. 3000/- and in lieu of fine he

Pr
has to undergo additional R.I. for 3 (three) months.

17. Appellant No. 1, Dinesh Kumar has been released on
a
bail, therefore his bail bond is discharged.

hy

18. With this modification and sentence this appeal is
ad

dismissed.

M

19. Copy of the judgment alongwith original record to
sent immediate to the Trial Court for necessary action.

of
rt

(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO)
ou

JUDGE
C
h
ig

L.R.

H

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH
RANA
Date: 2018.01.25 04:36:04 -08’00’

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh