SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kripal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2018


Criminal Appeal No.1087/2012

Kripal Singh


State of M.P.

Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
Shri R.S. Shukla, amicus curiae for the appellant.
Shri Sharad Sharma, Govt. Advocate for the State.

Whether approved for Yes.
reporting ?

Law laid down Evidence of the prosecutrix is similar to evidence
of the injured-complainant or witness. The testimony
of the prosecutrix if found to be reliable, per se, may
be sufficient to convict a culprit and no corroboration
of her evidence is necessary. In prosecution of rape,
law does not require corroboration.
Absence of injury – external or internal, on the
body of the prosecutrix would not render the testimony
of the prosecutrix unreliable.

Significant paragraph Nos. 9.


( Jabalpur, dt.20.01.2018)

None appears for the appellant. Shri R.S. Shukla,

Advocate who is present in Court, has been appointed as an amicus

curiae, considering the fact that the appeal is pending since 2012 and

the accused-appellant is in jail since 2011.

2. In the instant appeal a challenge has been made to the

order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned XIII

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, District Bhopal in S.T.

No.397/2011 [State of M.P. vs. Kripal Singh] on 26-4-2012 whereby

the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence
450 of the Indian Penal Code. R.I. for 10 years and fine of
Rs.500/-, in default, further
R.I. for three months.

376 of the Indian Penal Code. R.I. for 10 years and fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default, further
R.I. for six months.

506-II of the Indian Penal R.I. for 7 years and fine of
Code. Rs.500/-, in default, further
R.I. for three months.

(substantive sentence to run concurrently)

3. The prosecution case is that on 13-5-2011 the

prosecutrix was sleeping in her temporary shed (Jhuggi) along with

her children and her husband was out of station. At about 01:30 AM

in the night the appellant accompanying with his friend entered into

the Jhuggi and took away 9 month old child of the prosecutris on the

point of a knife and thereafter under administration of threat rape

was committed with the prosecutrix. As alleged, when the child

started crying, the neighbour – Bane Singh and his wife – Parwati

came out and the accused persons fled away from the spot.

4. In the morning the husband of the prosecutrix came and

thereafter a report was lodged. The prosecutrix was sent for medical

examination and the accused persons were arrested. On discovery

statement of the accused, a knife was seized. Vaginal slide and

`petticoat’ of the prosecutrix were sent for chemical analysis to the


5. The accused-appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded

false implication. Thereafter he was prosecuted as have been stated


6. The prosecution has examined six prosecution

witnesses. PW-2 is the prosecutrix. PW-3 is Bane Singh, neighbour

of the prosecutrix. PW-4 is Hardev Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector

of Police who had recorded the FIR. PW-5 is Mastram, a witness of

memorandum of the accused and seizure. PW-6 is J.P. Tiladiya,

investigating officer. Dr. Abha Sharma (PW-1), who had conducted

medical examination of the prosecutrix. The testimony of the

prosecuitrix (PW-2) is corroborated with the the statement of her

neighbour – Bane Singh (PW-3), who has deposed that the

prosecutrix had come to his house and stated that she was raped by

the accused-appellant. Though he had not seen the appellant at the

spot, however, he has supported the statement of the prosecutrix that

soon after the incident she had informed him in the night.

7. Dr. Abha Sharma (PW-1) who had medically examined

the prosecutrix has stated that the prosecutrix was habitual in sexual

intercourse, but there was no injury on her private part. Her hymen

was found old and ruptured. She could not give any definite opinion

about the alleged rape.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

submitted that since no injury has been found either on the person or

private part of the prosecutrix, therefore, it is not a case of rape.

Even if the prosecution case is accepted, it was with the consent of

the prosecutrix. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case

the argument advanced on behalf of the accused-appellant cannot be


9. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Chhoteylal, AIR 2011

SC 697 it is held that mere non-presence of injury on the person or

private part of the prosecutrix, it is not sufficient to infer that the

prosecutrix was a consenting party. It was further held that the

woman is a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to crime.

Her evidence cannot be tested with suspicion as that of an

accomplice. In the present case, the prosecutrix has clearly deposed

that she was sleeping along with her children in the hutment and the

accused-appellant had come therein and had taken her nine month

child and she was threatened by the accused that her child would be

killed with the knife being carried by him, thereafter she was raped

by the appellant under administration of threats. In such

circumstances, if there is no sign of resistance or mark of injury on

her person, it cannot be inferred that the prosecutrix was a

consenting party.

10. Defence was taken that the accused-appellant has been

falsely implicated because of previous dispute between them. From

the statement of the prosecutrix there is nothing to show that there

was any reason for false implication of the accused-appellant. The

statement of the prosecutrix is well-explained and coupled with the

facts that the neighbour – Bane Singh (PW-3) was immediately

informed by the prosecutrix and a prompt FIR thereto was lodged in

the morning itself when the husband of the prosecutrix returned.

11. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved its fact

beyond doubt. In the obtaining factual scenario, I do not find any

case for interference with the impugned judgment passed by the

learned trial Judge is made out and the findings recorded by him are


12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(Vijay Kumar Shukla)


Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR
Date: 2018.01.25 18:55:10 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2022 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 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 Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation