HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1601/2008
Lallu Kol @ Premma
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
Present : Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K.Gangele, Judge
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, Judge
————————————————————————————-
Smt. Mamta Dubey, Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla, Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
————————————————————————————-
JUDGMENT
(03/05/2018)
Per : S.K.Gangele, J :-
1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment
dated 02.04.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahdol in
Sessions Trial No. 164/2007 whereby the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced as under :
Section of Indian Sentence Fine In default of fine
Penal Code (in Rs.)
450 R.I. for 3 years 1,000/- R.I. for 3
months
376 Life Imprisonment 1,000/- R.I. for 6
months
323 R.I. for 3 months – –
506-B R.I. for 1 year – –
2. The prosecution story in brief is that, on 09.06.2007
at around 9 o’ clock at night, the appellant came to the house of
2 CRA No. 1601/2008
the prosecutrix. He tried to strip her. The prosecutrix resisted.
Thereafter, appellant had inflicted blows by hands and fist on her
face and chest. He tied her mouth with gamcha (cloth), removed
her saree and thereafter committed rape with her. Thereafter, he
ran away from the place. Report of the incident was lodged at the
police station. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against
the appellant.
4. During trial appellant abjured guilt and pleaded
innocence. The trial Court held the appellant guilty and
convicted him as mentioned hereinabove.
5. Gulbasua (PW-1) is the prosecutrix. At the time of
incident, she was aged near about 60 years. She deposed that I
returned to my house after doing labour work. I was lying on the
bed and sleeping. At around 2:00-2:30 am in the night, appellant
entered my house. He sat on my chest. He pressed my mouth
and slapped me. Thereafter, he opened my saree and tore my
saya (petticoat) which I was wearing. He had also closed my
mouth and committed rape with me. I resisted. However, the
appellant had inflicted injuries on me and committed rape 3-4
times with me. He was in a drunken condition. I told the
incident to my neighbour Lachchu (PW-2). Thereafter, Choubey
Maharaj, Babbu, Nathu reached on the spot and the appellant ran
3 CRA No. 1601/2008
away from the house. I went to the Police Station, Amlai on a
bicycle along with Nathhu and lodged the report which is Ex.
P/1. I was examined by the doctor.
6. Lachchu (PW-2) is another witness. He deposed that
at around 2:30 am in the night, prosecutrix came to my house.
She was naked. She told me that some thief had entered her
house. I asked her why you are naked. She told me that rape was
committed with me. Thereafter, I went to the house of the
prosecutrix and noticed that appellant was in the house. He was
in a drunk condition. We had caught the appellant but thereafter
he ran away. Other persons also reached on the spot.
7. Ramnaresh Chaturvedi (PW-3) also deposed that
Lachchu (PW-2) came to my house and thereafter I went to the
house of the prosecutrix. Appellant was in the house and
thereafter, he ran away from the house. Prosecutrix told me that
the appellant had committed rape with her.
8. Dr. D.P.Mohanti (PW-5) deposed that on 09.06.2007,
I was posted as medical officer at Community Health Centre,
Dhanpuri. On the aforesaid date I had examined the prosecutrix.
She was aged about 60 years. I noticed the following injuries on
the person of the prosecutrix.
(i) An Abrasion of 2×1 cms. above the left knee.
4 CRA No. 1601/2008
(ii) One injury of swelling, 2×2 cms. on the left jaw bone.
9. Dr. Mohanti opined that injuries were caused by hard
and blunt object. He further deposed that the lady was
complaining pain in her breast. I examined her private parts
also. However, I did not notice any injury on her private parts.
Hymen was ruptured. The lady was habitual of sexual
intercourse. I did not give any opinion about rape.
10. R.P.Tripathi (PW-6) deposed that on 09.06.2007,
prosecutrix lodged report. I recorded her statement and registered
the offence. Ex. P/1 is the report. It was read over to the
complainant (prosecutrix). She affixed her thumb impression on
the report. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. I
recorded statements of complainant Gulbasua, Nathu Kol, Babbu
Singh, Lachchu Kol, Ramnaresh Chaturvedi and Ramji Kol. I
also prepared spot map Ex. P/2. I also seized some articles vide
seizure memo Ex. P/3. On 14.06.2007, appellant was arrested.
The undergarments of the appellant were seized vide seizure
memo Ex. P/10. Appellant was sent for medical examination.
Patwari also prepared spot map Ex. P/13.
11. From the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1) this fact has
been proved that the appellant entered into the house of the
prosecutrix. He slapped her and committed rape with her.
5 CRA No. 1601/2008
Lachchu (PW-2) and Ramnaresh Chaturvedi (PW-3) further
deposed that they went to the house of the prosecutrix and
appellant was present there. On seeing them, appellant had ran
away from the spot. In our opinion, on the basis of aforesaid
evidence, trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for
commission of offence punishable under Section 450, 376, 323
and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code.
12. Now, the question for consideration is “what sentence
be awarded to the appellant?” The minimum sentence at the time
of commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC
was 7 years. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment, as
awarded by the trial Court in the present case. The appellant is in
jail since 14.06.2007. He has completed more than 10 years’ of
actual jail sentence.
13. The Apex Court in the case of Hazara Singh Vs. Raj
Kumar Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 516 has held as under in regard to
award of proper sentence :
“27. While rejecting the similar reasons as
stated by the High Court in the present case, the
following conclusion arrived at by this Court
are relevant:
7. …. The learned Judge then took notice of the
fact that three co- accused of the appellants
were given benefit of doubt by the trial court
and acquitted them although they were also
attributed causing of some injuries. If acquittal
of some co-accused casts a cloud of doubt over
6 CRA No. 1601/2008
the entire prosecution case, the whole case may
be rejected. But we fail to understand how
acquittal of some of the accused can have any
relevance to the question of sentence awarded
to those who are convicted. In this case the
prosecution submitted that these two appellants
alone were armed with guns. Then the learned
Judge observes that no useful purpose, will be
served by sending the appellants to prison again
to undergo the unexpired period of their
sentence. We repeatedly asked why this
indulgence and waited for answer in vain. If
someone is enlarged on bail during the
pendency of appeal and when the appeal is
dismissed sending him back to jail is going to
raise qualms of conscience in the Judge,
granting of bail pending appeal would be
counter-productive. One can pre-empt or
forestall the decision by obtaining an order of
bail.
8. If the learned Judge had in mind the
provisions of Section 360 of Cr.PC so as to
extend the benefit of treatment reserved for first
offenders, these appellants hardly deserve the
same. Admittedly, both the appellants were
above the age of 21 years on the date of
committing the offence. They have wielded
dangerous weapons like firearms. Four shots
were fired. The only fortunate part of the
occurrence is that the victim escaped death. The
offence committed by the appellants is proved
to be one under Section 307 of IPC punishable
with imprisonment for life. We were told that
the appellants had hardly suffered
imprisonment for three months. If the offence is
under Section 307 IPC i.e. attempt to commit
murder which is punishable with imprisonment
for life and the sentence to be awarded is
imprisonment for three months, it is better not
to award substantive sentence as it makes
mockery of justice. Mr Jain said that the High
Court has enhanced the fine and compensated
the injured and, therefore, we should not
enhance the sentence. Accepting such a
7 CRA No. 1601/2008
submission would mean that if your pockets
can afford, commit serious crime, offer to pay
heavy fine and escape tentacles of law. Power
of wealth need not extend to overawe court
processes. Thus it appears that the High Court
wrongly interfered with the order of sentence
on wholly untenable and irrelevant grounds
some of them not borne out by the record. In
order, therefore, to avoid miscarriage of justice
we must interfere and set aside the sentence
imposed by the High Court and restore the
sentence imposed by the learned Sessions
Judge which we hereby order. Both the
appellants shall be taken into custody forthwith
to suffer their sentence.”
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satish
Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar Vs. State of Gujarat [(2015) 7
SCC 259 has upheld the sentence awarded by the High Court for
four and half years for commission of offence punishable under
Section 376 of IPC. In the aforesaid case, the High Court
reduced the sentence from RI seven years to RI four and half
years. In the present case, the appellant has undergone actual jail
sentence of more than 10 years. Hence, in our opinion, it would
be just and proper to award sentence to the appellant as already
undergone.
21. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is
partly allowed. His conviction and sentence awarded by the trial
Court punishable under Sections 450, 323 and 506-B of Indian
Penal Code is hereby upheld. The conviction of the appellant for
8 CRA No. 1601/2008
commission of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code is hereby upheld, however, the sentence of life
imprisonment awarded by the trial Court is modified to 10 years.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
22. Appellant is in jail. He has already completed jail
sentence of more than 10 years. He be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
23. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below
for information and compliance along with its record.
(S.K.GANGELE) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
Digitally signed by
SREEVIDYA
Date: 2018.05.05 11:53:09
+05’30’