HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1859/2008
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.
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.
Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.
(TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL) JUDGE ak