SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ashok vs The State Of M.P. on 3 April, 2018

1

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR

Criminal Appeal No. 1831 of 2004

Parties Name Ashok
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Bench Constituted Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo
Judgment/Order delivered by Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele
Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting
Name of counsels for parties For appellant: Shri R.S. Shukla, Amicus
Curiae.

For respondent/State: Shri A.P. Singh,

Government Advocate.

Law laid down
Significant paragraph
numbers

(J U D G M E N T)
Pronounced on : 03.04.2018

1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction

dated 17.10.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No.461/2000. The

appellant/Ashok alongwith another co-accused/Madan Singh was

prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section

376 (2)(f) of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court held the appellant

guilty for commission of aforesaid offence and awarded sentence

of RI for life alongwith fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation RI

one month.

-:- 2 -:-

Cr.A. No.1831/2004

2. Prosecution story in brief is that prosecutrix was returning back

after giving food to her elder sister. On the way, both the accused

persons asked the prosecutrix to transport the coal. The prosecutrix

refused the same. Thereafter, present appellant lifted the

prosecutrix in his lap and took her in the garden of Shiv Prasad

Sahu near the shrubs, where both the accused persons had

committed rape with her. She returned home and told the story to

Ganga Bai, Chhoti Bai and Mangi Bai etc. The report of the

incident was lodged at the police station. Thereafter, police

conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet. The appellant

abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. The trial Court held the

appellant and another co-accused guilty for commission of offence

and awarded punishment as mentioned above in the judgment.

3. Co-accused Madan Singh filed Criminal Appeal No.2947/2000,

which was disposed of as infructuous because he was died during

pendency of the appeal. Present appeal has been filed by appellant-

Ashok.

4. PW-4 Rannu Bai (prosecutrix) in her evidence deposed that at

the time of incident, I was aged about 10 years. At around 5

O’clock in the evening, I was returning back after giving food to

my sister. Near railway line, present appellant and another co-

accused met with me and they made a request for transporting the

coal. I refused the same. Thereafter, Ashok had taken me in his lap

-:- 3 -:-

Cr.A. No.1831/2004

and took me to nearby shrubs, thereafter, he stripped me and also

stripped himself and committed ‘galat kam’ (sexual intercourse)

with me. I was crying, but, nobody was there. Thereafter, Madan

Singh committed the same act with me. I was sitting near railway

line. My sister came there. She had taken me to home. I told the

story to my sister that both the accused persons had committed

rape with me. I told the same to my grandmother (nani) Chhoti

Bai. I also told the same to Munni Bai. Thereafter, I went to police

station Madhavnagar and lodged the report, which is Ex.P2. Police

prepared spot map, which is Ex.P3. My undergarment (chaddi)

was seized. The trial Court asked a specific question about the

sexual intercourse, because the prosecutrix used the word ‘galat

kam’, and the prosecutrix replied in affirmative that both the

accused persons had committed rape with her.

5. PW-1 Chhoti Bai deposed that the prosecutrix told her that the

appellant had committed rape with her and thereafter, report was

lodged. PW-2 Ganga Bai is elder sister of the prosecutrix. She

deposed that on the date of incident, I had gone to work as

labourer. When I returned back, the prosecutrix told me that the

appellant and another co-accused had committed rape with her

near the river near Neeraj Talkies. She told the same facts to our

grandmother (nani) Chhoti Bai. The prosecutrix lodged the report

at the police station. PW-3 Munni Bai also deposed that

prosecutrix told me that accused persons committed rape with her.

-:- 4 -:-

Cr.A. No.1831/2004

6. PW-7 Dr. Smt. Usha Nigam examined the prosecutrix. She

deposed that I noticed that perennial region of the prosecutrix was

torn of first degree. There were injuries on the private part of the

prosecutrix caused by hard and blunt object. There were signs that

some hard object was forcefully penetrated in the private part of

the prosecutrix. She further deposed that the injury could be caused

by penis.

7. PW-6 Dr. R.S. Asrani examined the present appellant. He in his

evidence deposed that the appellant was capable to perform sexual

intercourse.

8. PW-11 B.L. Khadeliya recorded statements of Munni Bai, Gannu

Bai, Chhote Bai and Gangabai. He also prepared spot map, which

is Ex.P3.

9. PW-12 Ratnesh Kumar was posted, at the relevant time, as ASI

at Police Station Madhavnagar. He deposed that prosecutrix lodged

the report, which is Ex.P2 and I had written the report.

Undergarment of the prosecutrix was seized vide seizure memo

Ex.P1 and I signed the same. The appellant was arrested vide arrest

memo Ex.P15 and I signed the same.

10. From the evidence of the prosecutrix, which is unshakable, this

fact has been proved that the appellant and another co-accused had

forcefully performed sexual intercourse with her. This fact has

further been proved from the evidence of the doctor (PW-7), who

-:- 5 -:-

Cr.A. No.1831/2004

examined the prosecutrix after the incident and deposed that there

were injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix

was aged about 10-11 years at the time of incident. The FIR was

lodged promptly. She narrated the incident to other witnesses

including her sister. They testified the same.

11. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, in our opinion, the

trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for commission of

offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and awarded

proper sentence.

12. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. The

appellant is in jail. If he has completed the jail sentence, as

awarded by the trial Court, he be released.

(S.K. Gangele) (Smt. Anjuli Palo)
Judge Judge
Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI
Date: 2018.04.04 13:21:17 +05’30’

vkt

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