MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Punishment for False Section 376 of IPC, u/s.182 and 211 IPC




Mahila Bhagwati Bai
W/o Bablu Ahirwar,
aged about 26 years,
R/o village Darguwa,
Police Station Budera,District Tikamgarh (M.P.) … Appellant


The State of Madhya Pradesh … Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Pradeep Naveriya, Advocate

For Respondent/State :Shri Vinod Fouzdar, Panel Lawyer


08.05.2012 This   appeal   has   been   preferred   against  judgment   dated   22.08.2008  passed   by   1st  additional   Sessions   Judge,   Tikamgarh   in   S.T.   No.   264/05,  convicting the appellant under Section 182 of IPC and sentenced to 6 months  R.I. and under Section 211 part­II of IPC and sentenced to 2 years R.I. and  with fine of Rs.1,000/­

2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 20.11.2002 appellant lodged  FIR Ex. P­7 against Nanhe Lodhi and Bablu Tiwari at police station Budera,  District Tikamgarh on the basis of which a case at Crime No.78/2002 was  registered   against   them   under   Section   376(2)(g)   and   506   (b)   of   IPC   and  under   Section   3(1)(12)   and   3(2)(5)   of   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled  Tribes   (Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Act.   After   7   days   of   the   incident   i.e.   on  27.11.2002, appellant submitted  a  letter ExP­15 to S.P.  Tikamgarh stating  that Nanhe Lodhi and Bablu Tiwari did not commit any rape on her rather  they hurled  abuses only. As a  result of investigation it was found  that no  incident of rape ever took place rather appellant lodged a false report against  two   persons,   and   a   Khatma   report  Ex.   P­9   was  filed   in  the   matter   before  concerned   magistrate   and   I.O.   sought   permission   also   to   prosecute   the  Cr.A.No.1859/2008 appellant under Section 182/211 of IPC. Accordingly, Istgasa Ex. P­8 under  Section 182/211 of IPC was submitted against the appellant.

3. Trial Court framed charges   under   Section   182/211   part­II   of   IPC  against the appellant. She abjured guilt.

4. To substantiate the case of prosecution, statements of Nirpatlal Sahu  PW­1, Munni Lal Rai PW­2, Panna Lal PW­3, Dr. A.K. Nuna PW­4, Halki Bai  PW­5, Babulal PW­6, Himanshu Choubey, Sub Inspector, PW­7, Ratiya Bai  PW­8, Teja Bai PW­9, Shyam Bai PW­10, Arjun PW­11, Govind Rao Bhale,  Head   Constable,   PW­12,   Kaushalya   PW­13,   Bhagwandas   PW­14,   Sanjay  Kumar   Agrawal,   SDO(P),   PW­15   and   Kishori   Lal,   Head   Constable,   PW­16  were recorded.

See also  When plea of adverse possession is not proved?

5. Defence   of   the   appellant   was   that   she   never   lodged   a   false   report  against anybody rather incident of rape was happened with her, she has been  falsely implicated in this matter as a pressure tactics. In support of defence of  the appellant, statement of Rajaram DW­1 was recorded. After appreciating  the aforesaid evidence, trial court convicted and sentenced as above.

6. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been preferred on  the   grounds   that   appreciation   of   evidence   is   not   proper.     Evidence   of  prosecution   witnesses   is   not   reliable   and   conviction   has   been   based   on  insufficient and unreliable evidence. Conviction is bad in law and sentence is  harsh. On the other hand, learned  panel lawyer  supported  the findings of  conviction and sentence both.

7. Himanshu   Choubey,   Station   House   Officer,   PW­7   has   stated   that  appellant lodged FIR Ex.P­7 at police station Budera. Dr. A.K. Nuna PW­4  stated that appellant was carrying pregnancy of 4 months and there was no  sign   of   rape   on   her   body   rather   she   was   habitual   of   intercourse.   Sanjay  Agrawal, SDO(P), PW­15 stated that during course of investigation of case of  offence under Section 376 of IPC, he recorded statements of witnesses and  also   recorded   statement   of   appellant   two   times   and   found   that   no   such  incident happened with the appellant and prepared a Khatma report.


8. There is a  sufficient evidence  on record  to  show  that appellant has  lodged a false report under Section 376 of IPC and subsequently she herself  changed her version and deleted the allegations. In such background police  submitted   a   Khatma   report   before   magistrate   which   was   accepted  accordingly.   In  view   of  the   aforesaid   I   see   no   illegality   in  appreciation   of  evidence   done   by   the   trial   court   and   I   hereby   affirmed   the   conviction   of  appellant under Section 182 and 211 of IPC.

9. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that  during investigation she has suffered a jail custody of 4 days and no useful  purpose would be served in sending her back to jail.

10. In view of the fact that this incident has occurred about 10 years ago  and   appellant   has   already   suffered   custody   of   4   days,   appeal   deserves   to  allow   on   the   point   of   sentence.   In   view   of   the   peculiar   facts   and  circumstances of the case,  for an offence under Section 182 and 211 of IPC  sentence to 4 days undergone period seems to be just, proper and sufficient.  Jail sentence is reduced accordingly, and fine  sentence is affirmed.

See also  What is the difference between rights of major Unmarried daughter to claim maintenance from her father U/S 125 of CRPC and U/S 20 (3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act?

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.


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

MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.


CopyRight @ 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Whether a major child is entitled to get maintenance under Domestic violence Act?
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation