1 Cri.Appeal No.2263/2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 2263 of 2012
Kashiram, S/o Munna Lal
Tekam, aged about 22 years,
R/o Village-Gokulpur, PS-
Ugli, Distt. Seoni (MP)
State of Madhya Pradesh
Through P.S. Ugli, District-
HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON 25.11.2017
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 29.11.2017
For the Appellant:
Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate as Amicus Curiae.
For the State:
Shri Devendra Gangrade, Panel Lawyer.
Law laid down
Significant paragraph numbers :
This appeal has been filed by the appellants being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.09.2012, passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No.
2 Cri.Appeal No.2263/2012
86/2012, whereby appellant has been found guilty for
the offence punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.for five years and fine
of Rs.500/-,and R.I.for seven years and fine of
Rs.500/-,with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 6.5.2012
at around 4 pm while the prosecutrix was sleeping in
her house, the accused-appellant who is the son of the
real sister of the prosecutrix entered her house and
committed rape on her against her wishes. It is stated
that at the time of incident, husband of the prosecutrix
had gone out to the forest to graze the cattle and her two
daughters had gone to attend a wedding nearby.
According to the prosecution, the incident was
witnessed by Bundobai (PW.2) and Anil Kumar (PW.3),
who came running to the spot on hearing the hue and
cry raised by the prosecutrix and removed the appellant
from over the body of the prosecutrix.
3. The report (Ex.P/1)of the incident was lodged on
7.5.2012 at around 3 pm by the prosecutrix herself who
came to the police station along with her husband and
Kotwar Nathuram. On the basis of aforesaid report, the
criminal law was set in motion. The spot map was
prepared and broken pieces of bangles were seized from
3 Cri.Appeal No.2263/2012
the spot vide Ex.P/5.The prosecutrix was sent for
medical examination to District Hospital-Seoni where
she was examined by Dr.Rajeshwari Kushram (PW.6)
who found multiple abrasions on her back side.
4. After completion of investigation, the accused was
put on trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses
and filed various documentary evidence. The statement
of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.was recorded.
The defence examined one witness, namely, Sawanlal
Gond (DW.1) in its support.
5. The trial Court, believing the testimony of
prosecutrix (PW.1), Bundobai (PW.2) and Anil Kumar
(PW.3) and further relying on the medical evidence,
found the appellant guilty of committing the offence
under Section 450 and 376 of the IPC and convicted and
sentenced him as aforesaid.
6. Shri Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant as amicus curiae submits that the
appellant has been falsely implicated as the doctor has
not given any definite opinion about commission of rape
and the FIR was lodged on 7.5.2012, i.e. on the next
day, whereas her husband, according to prosecutrix,
has returned in the evening itself.
7. Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned Panel Lawyer
4 Cri.Appeal No.2263/2012
appearing for the respondent/State, on the other hand
supported the impugned judgment delivered by the trial
Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and on perusal of the record, it is observed that
the prosecutrix has been very consistent in her
statement despite extensive cross-examination. There is
no discrepancy in her case diary statement and her
statement recorded in the Court. She has stated in clear
terms that while she was sleeping alone in the house,
the accused who is her nephew, entered her house and
committed rape on her against her wishes. She has also
stated that hearing her hue and cry for help Bundobai,
Budhram and Anil came and on seeing the incident
forcefully removed the accused-appellant from over her
body. Bundobai (PW.2) and Anil Kumar (PW.3) have
supported and corroborated her statement. Anil Kumar
(PW.3) has stated that he removed the accused-
appellant from over the body of the prosecutrix, and at
that time the accused was not wearing any clothes.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the doctor has not given any definite
opinion regarding the rape sans merit. The doctor has
clearly stated that the prosecutrix was accustomed to
5 Cri.Appeal No.2263/2012
intercourse which is normal in the present case as she
was a married woman. The doctor has found multiple
abrasions on the back side of the prosecutrix which
according to her could have come during the course of
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that he has been falsely implicated on account
of the fact that he did not deliver three trolley of soil in
the house of prosecutrix and for this reason she was
annoyed with him and implicated him falsely is only
noted to be rejected. It cannot be believed that the
prosecutrix who was a real Masi would falsely implicate
her nephew, son of her real sister, in such a case.
11. It is evident from the record that the incident
happened in the evening at around 4 pm on 6.5.2012.
It is but natural for the wife to consult and deliberate
with her husband who came back in the evening after
grazing his cattle as the accused-appellant was a near
relation. It has also come in the evidence that the police
station from the place of incident is about 35 kms.away.
Under the circumstances, the FIR lodged on the next
day of the incident i.e. on 07.05.2012 cannot be said to
12. In view of the clear, consistent, reliable and
6 Cri.Appeal No.2263/2012
unimpeachable statement of prosecutrix which is
corroborated by the statements of Bundobai (PW.2) and
Anil Kumar (PW.3), and the medical evidence on record,
I find no illegality or infirmity in the finding of guilt
recorded by the trial Court.
13. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the
appellant being meritless is hereby dismissed. The
conviction and sentence of the appellant is upheld.
Appellant is in jail. He shall remain incarcerated to
undergo the remaining part of his jail sentence.
14. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary,
High Court Legal Services Committee, Jabalpur for