SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ram Narayan Sharma vs The State Of M.P. on 20 February, 2018

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR

DIVISION BENCH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Kumar Dubey,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subodh Abhyankar, JJ.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 502 OF 2004

Ram Narayan Sharma.
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh.

sh
————————————————————————————–
Shri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant as Amicus Curiae.

e
ad
Shri Manish Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/ State.
Pr
—————————————————————————————
a
hy

JUDGMENT

ad
M

(Delivered on this the 20th day of February, 2018)
of

PER: Subodh Abhyankar,J.

rt
ou

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
C

has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order
h

dated 16/02/2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST
ig
H

No.208/2003, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376 (1)

and 501 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and one year’s RI

respectively.

2. The prosecution case in short is that between 18.4.2003 to 19.5.2003 the

appellant committed rape of his own daughter aged 14 years at his house

situated at Dilkush, Aishbagh, Bhopal. The information regarding the

aforesaid offence of rape was initially communicated by the prosecutrix

(PW-5) to one Nathu Singh (PW-6), who was an old acquaintance of the

family and was considered as grand father by the prosecutrix. Thereafter an
FIR (Ex.P-6) was lodged at the concerned Police Station. The prosecutrix was

medically examined by the doctors and after completing the investigation,

charge sheet was filed against the present appellant before the competent

Court, and the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal after recording the evidence

of the witnesses convicted the present appellant under Sections 376(1), 506

of IPC and sentenced as aforesaid.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence the

instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

4. Shri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

sh
the appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter, and the learned trial

e
ad
Court has committed a grave error in convicting the present appellant for the

Pr
aforesaid offences, as in the MLC report of the prosecutrix (PW-5), the doctor

has opined that the prosecutrix is habitual to intercourse and there were no
a
hy

external or internal injury on the body of the prosecutrix, and as such no
ad

opinion regarding commission of rape has been given. Learned counsel for
M

the appellant has further submitted that the independent witness Farhana
of

Khan (PW-3) has been declared hostile and has not supported the case of the
rt

prosecution. It is also emphasized that the appellant was the tenant of this
ou

witness PW-3 and as such her evidence cannot be lightly brushed aside.

C

Under these circumstances the finding of guilt is erroneous, which deserves
h

to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.

ig

5. On the other hand, Shri Manish Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on
H

behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment, finding and

sentence mainly contending that the prosecutrix happens to be the daughter of

the appellant and there is no reason for her to falsely implicate her own father. It

is further submitted that the prosecutrix had also written a letter Ex.P-7 to his

acquaintance Nathu Singh (PW-6) regarding her plight which is also on record.

Thus, the evidence has been properly appreciated by the learned Judge of the trial

Court and the present appellant has been rightly convicted. Therefore, it is prayed

that the present appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Dr. C.S. Jain has been examined as PW-1, who examined the prosecutrix. He has

stated that the age of the prosecutrix was around 14 years. Dr. Vinita Agrawal

PW-2 has stated that she had examined the prosecutrix on 19.5.2003 and did not

find any external or internal injury on the body of the prosecutrix. She also found

the hymen of the prosecutrix to be ruptured, although she has stated that the

prosecutrix informed her that her father is raping her since last one month. Thus,

it stands proved that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years at the time of the incident

and was subjected to sexual intercourse.

sh

8. Farhana Khan (PW-3), who happens to be the landlady of the appellant has been

e
ad
declared hostile, although she has been confronted with her initial statement

Pr
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that the prosecutrix had

informed her that her father does wrong things to her. She is also a witness to the
a
hy

seizure of bed sheet, which was recovered from the house of the appellant.

ad

9. JPS Kuswaha (PW-4) was the Investigating Officer. He has proved the FIR
M

(Ex.P-6) as also the letter Ex.P-7 written by the prosecutrix, which was brought by
of

Nathu Singh. The spot map (Ex.P-9) was also prepared by him and he also seized
rt

the clothes of the prosecutrix, her slides etc. vide Ex.P-10. He also recorded the
ou

statement of witnesses and vide Ex.P-12 he sent the seized articles to the FSL
C

Gwalior.

h

10. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW-5 and she has fully supported the
ig

case of the prosecution. She has deposed in the Court that her father, the
H

appellant herein had raped her for around 10-15 times and also threatened her

with dire consequences when she refused to cooperate. She has also stated that

she informed about the incident only to Nathu Singh PW-6 and then lodged the

FIR. She has also confirmed that she had written a letter (Ex.P-7) to Nathu Singh

PW-6 regarding her plight. She has been cross examined at length but nothing

substantive could be extracted from her examination. She has denied that she had

affair with Niranjan son of Nathu Singh, and as her father saw her in a compromise

position with him, in order to falsely implicate her father, she has lodged a false
report against him. The aforesaid suggestion has been denied by the prosecutrix.

11. Nathu Singh (PW-6) has also supported the case of the prosecution. He has

stated that initially when the prosecutrix informed him regarding rape upon her by

her own father, he could not believe her and slapped her but ultimately he took

her to the police station to lodge an FIR. He has also proved the letter written by

the prosecutrix to him, which is on record as Ex.P-7. He has been put to such a

question that the appellant was involved with the prosecutrix, in order to falsely

implicate him, the aforesaid suggestion has been denied by this witness.

12. In the present case, the FIR was lodged on 19.5.2003 and the date of incident

sh
is said to be between 18.4.2003 to 19.5.2003, the reason for such delay is

e
ad
anybody’s guess. In such circumstances, lodging of FIR after one month cannot

Pr
be said to be after an inordinate delay. Her letter Ex.P-7, which is also on record

clearly reveals the testimony of the prosecutrix and there is no reason to
a
hy

disbelieve the aforesaid letter written by the prosecutrix regarding her father’s
ad

misdemeanor.

M

13. In the accused statement the appellant has taken a plea that he had a quarrel
of

with Nathu Singh, who had threatened him to falsely implicate in such a case,
rt

however the aforesaid plea has not been proved in any manner and there is
ou

nothing on record to show that Nathu Singh had any dispute with the appellant.

C

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that present
h

appellant had committed rape of his own daughter, who was aged 14 years and
ig

was residing with him and had reposed her faith in him, but defying every single
H

norm of ethical behavior, the appellant committed rape on her. Under these

circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere in the findings recorded by

the learned Judge of the trial Court.

15. In the result, the criminal appeal filed by appellant Ram Narayan Sharma is

hereby dismissed. The appellant is in jail, he shall serve the remaining jail

sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court in accordance with law.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) (Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge Judge
20/02/2018 20/02/2018.
Ansari.
Digitally signed by
MANZOOR AHMED
Date: 2018.02.20 20:55:37
-08’00’

sh
e
ad
Pr
a
hy
ad
M
of
rt
ou
C
h
ig
H

Leave a Reply

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

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