SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manohar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2018

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

Cr.A. No.146/2013 (Manohar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) (-1-)

Cr.A. No.146/2013
(Manohar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)

Indore, dated: 22.03.2018
Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Present appeal has been filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 12.12.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Mandleshwar (West Niman), Madhya Pradesh in Session
Trial No.15/2012.

2. The facts of the case reveal that on 29.11.2011, the
prosecutrix, PW 3, aged about 15 years, as she was unwell,
did not go to school and her father- Nannu PW-4 and mother-
Umabai WP-5 went to the field and her younger brother
Pramod went outside of the house to play and at that point of
time, at 12 O’ clock in the noon, the appellant – Manohar
Rajpoot entered the house and locked the house from inside
and forcibly committed rape upon the prosecutrix. She was
threatened also and she was told not to tell the incident to
any one, however, when her parents came back to the house
in the evening, the entire incident was reported to the parents
by the girl and on the same day, report was lodged with the
police at crime No.0127/11 for offence under Section 452,
376 and 506 Part II of IPC.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

Cr.A. No.146/2013 (Manohar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) (-2-)

3. The matter was investigated by the Sub Inspector –
Narendra Gome PW-8 and he obtained consent from the
father of the prosecutrix for subjecting the prosecutrix for
medical examination Ex.P-5 and she was immediately sent to
Primary Health Center, Kasrawad for medical examination.
Dr. Amita Pandey, PW-7 on 30.11.2011 has examined the
prosecutrix and prepared a slide of vaginal fluid. The spot
map was prepared by the investing officer- Narendra Gome
and the slide prepared along with the clothes of the
prosecutrix was sent for forensic examination. The accused
was arrested on 01.12.2011 and he was subjected to medical
examination and Dr. Rakesh Patidar PW-1 conducted the
medical examination Ex.P-2 and the accused was found to be
medically fit to do sexual intercourse.

4. A report was received from the Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory, Indore and thereafter, statements of the
witnesses and the prosecutrix were recorded by the
investigating officer- Narendra Gome PW-8. Later on,
charges were framed for offence under Sections 452, 376 and
506 Part II of IPC. The present appellant ‘the accused’ has
denied the allegation and pleaded innocence and it was stated
that the father of the girl was required to pay Rs.50,000/- to
the appellant and, therefore, as he was demanding money, a
false and fabricated case has been registered against him.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

Cr.A. No.146/2013 (Manohar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) (-3-)

5. Before the trial court, statements of the witnesses were
recorded. The prosecutrix PW-3 has categorically stated that
her parents went out to work in the field at 9 a.m. in the
morning and his younger brother was also not present in the
house and at that point of time, the accused came inside the
house and forcibly committed rape (Khota Kaam) upon the
prosecutrix. She was also given a threat of life and it is only
after her parents came back to the house, she reported the
matter to her parents and thereafter, all of them went to the
police station for registration of First Information Report.

6. The statements of the prosecutrix have been supported
by her father Nannu and mother Umabai, Ex.P4 and Ex. P5.
They have stated categorically that when they came back in
the evening to their house, they saw the prosecutrix crying
and the prosecutrix told them that she has been subjected to
rape by the accused person. She has narrated the incident in
depth to her parents and the parents have deposed the entire
incident before the trial court as told by their daughter.

7. The First Information Report was lodged with quite
promptitude in which it has been stated that (Ex.P-4) it was
the present appellant, who has committed rape. Dr. Amita
Pandey has conducted the medical examination and she has
stated that hymen was ruptured. Dr. Amita Pandey PW-7 has
prepared a slide of vaginal fluid and the slide as well as the
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

Cr.A. No.146/2013 (Manohar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) (-4-)

other material including the clothes of the prosecutrix were
sent for forensic examination. It was sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory, Rau, Indore. As per Ex.P-9, vaginal fluid was
having sperms and sperms were found on the underwear of
the prosecutrix also, meaning thereby, the factum of rape as
stated by the prosecutrix has been established before the trial
court.

8. A defence has been taken before the trial court as well
as before this Court that there are adjoining houses and a
large number of people were residing in the adjoining
houses, hence, in case, rape was being committed, it was
quite natural that screaming of the girl would have been
heard by other persons.

9. This Court has carefully gone through the entire
evidence of the prosecutrix and she has categorically stated
that her mouth was forcibly closed by the accused person and
therefore, in light of the statement given by the prosecutrix,
there was no occasion that any sound would have gone out of
the room as the mouth of the prosecutrix was forcibly closed
by the accused person.

10. The other defence which was taken by the accused is
that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was to be given by the father of the
prosecutrix to the accused person, which was a loan taken by
him. There was no evidence brought on record to establish
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

Cr.A. No.146/2013 (Manohar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) (-5-)

that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was given by the accused to the
father of the girl and in those circumstances, based upon the
statements of the prosecutrix and the statements of the
parents of the prosecutrix and forensic report, this Court is of
the opinion that the prosecution was able to establish beyond
reasonable doubt the commission of rape by the present
appellant.

11. The trial court has taken into account the judgment
delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of U.P. Vs. Chhotelal, reported in AIR 2011 SC 607
wherein, based upon the sole testimony of prosecutrix, the
accused was convicted and in the aforesaid case, it has been
held that the testimony of the prosecutrix, if found reliable,
by itself is sufficient to convict culprit and no corroborative
evidence is necessary in case of rape.

12. In the present case, the testimony of the prosecutrix is
corroborated by testimony of her parents. There is a forensic
science laboratory report on record which also corroborates
the factum of rape. In light of the clinching evidence brought
on record by the prosecution, this Court does not find any
reason to set aside the judgment delivered by the learned
Sessions Judge.

13. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has
drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment delivered
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

Cr.A. No.146/2013 (Manohar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) (-6-)

by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sukhdev
Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 3836,
wherein a Division Bench of the High Court has converted
the punishment of life imprisonment to seven years
imprisonment.

14. In the aforesaid case, the accused was charged to have
committed rape upon his own daughter and the Division
Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to
interfere with the judgment delivered by the learned
Additional Session Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track, Amritsar,
however, it has reduced the sentence from life imprisonment
to that of imprisonment of seven years without alteration in
the sentence of fine.

15. In the considered opinion of this Court, once this Court
has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix was subjected
to rape, the question of interference in the quantum of
punishment specially in respect of heinous crime like rape
does not arise. Learned government advocate has argued
before this Court that in crime of rape, no leniency is
required, in fact, in the society, such crime are at the rise.

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, 1996 (Cri.LJ), 1728 in
paragraph No.20 has held as under:-

“We must remember that a rapist not only
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

Cr.A. No.146/2013 (Manohar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) (-7-)

violates the victim’s privacy and personal
integrity, but inevitably cause serious
psychological as well as physical harm in the
process. Rape is no merely a physical assault it
is often destructive of the whole personality of
the victim. A murder destroys the physical body
of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of
the helpless female. The Courts, therefore,
shoulder a great a great responsibility while
trying an accused on charges of rape. They must
deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity,.
The Courts should examine the broader
probabilities of a case and no get swayed by
minor contradictions of insignificant
discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix,
which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an
otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence
of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be
relied upon without seeking corroboration of her
statement in material particulars. If for some
reason the Court finds it difficult to place
implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look
for evidence which may lend assurance to her
testimony, short of corroboration required in the
case of an accomplice. The testimony of the
prosecutrix must be appreciated in the
background of the entire case and the trial Court
must be alive to its responsibility and be
sensitive while dealing with cases involving
sexual molestation.”

17. In light of the aforesaid judgment, as rape is not merely
a physical assault, it is often destructive to the whole
personality of the victim, this Court is of the opinion that no
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

Cr.A. No.146/2013 (Manohar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) (-8-)

question of interference is warranted in the present appeal in
respect of sentence awarded by the trial court. No case for
interference is made out in the matter. The appeal is
dismissed.

(S.C. Sharma)
N.R. Judge

Digitally signed by
NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA
Date: 2018.03.24 18:17:01
+05’30’

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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