1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR

Criminal Appeal No. 2213 of 2004
Parties Name Panjab Singh @ Vishnu Bahadur Singh
Khairwar
vs
State of Madhya Pradesh
Bench Constituted Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo
Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele
Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting
Name of counsels for parties For appellant: Ms. Manju Khatri,
Amicus Curiae.
For respondent/State: Shri Pradeep

Singh, Government Advocate.

Law laid down
Significant paragraph
numbers

(J U D G M E N T)
Pronounced on : 02.01.2018

1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated

27.09.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.48/2004. The trial Court

held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable

under Section 376(2)(cha) of Indian Penal Code and awarded

sentence of life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.200/-.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that the appellant had taken

the prosecutrix, who was at that time about six years old, near a

nala and committed sexual intercourse with her, due to which,

her vagina was ruptured and blood was oozing. She cried. She

-:- 2 -:-

Cr.A. No.2213 of 2004

came to her mother and thereafter, her mother lodged a written

report at the police station, which is Ex.P2. On the aforesaid

report, a FIR was registered at the police station, which is

Ex.P10. Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet

against the appellant. The appellant abjured the guilt and

pleaded innocence. The trial Court, after trial, held the appellant

guilty for commission of offence and awarded sentence as

mentioned above in the judgment.

3. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has submitted

that the trial Court committed error in convicting and

sentencing the appellant. He is in jail for the last 14 years.

Hence, the sentence of the appellant be awarded as already

undergone.

4. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that the

prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant and the

trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and awarded

proper sentence.

5. PW-1 Shakuntala, is the mother of the prosecutrix. She

deposed that at around 12 O’clock in the noon, the appellant had

taken my daughter to a nearby nala and committed rape with

her. There was injury on her private part. I heard the cry of the

my daughter, thereafter, she came to me and told me that the

appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter,

-:- 3 -:-

Cr.A. No.2213 of 2004

I went to the house of the father of the appellant and told him

about the story. Other residents of the village came there.

Thereafter, I went to police station and submitted a written

complaint Ex.P2 and signed the same. Police sent the

prosecutrix for medical examination.

6. PW-2 Anarkali (prosecutrix) deposed that, at the

relevant time, she was studying in class 1 in a school. The

appellant had taken her to nearby nala (bahra) and he had

committed sexual intercourse with her, due to which blood was

oozing from her private part. She informed her mother, who was

at the house and thereafter, mother had taken her to the police

station. Police had sent her to the hospital, where she was

examined. She told the incident to the police.

7. PW-3 Agnu is an independent witness. He deposed that at

around 12 O’clock I was at my house and mother of the

prosecutrix told me that the appellant had committed sexual

intercourse with her daughter and same facts were told to me by

the prosecutrix also. Same facts have been deposed by PW-4

Raimuniya, who is a neighbour. PW-6 Shiv Prasad is also

neighbour of the prosecutrix. He deposed that I was eating at my

house and I went to the house of the prosecutrix after hearing

cry and I saw that blood was oozing from the private part of the

prosecutrix. Mother of the prosecutrix told me that the appellant

-:- 4 -:-

Cr.A. No.2213 of 2004

had committed sexual intercourse with her daughter. Same facts

were told by the prosecutrix. PW-8 Kamla Devi is also a

neighbour. She deposed the same facts as deposed by the PW-6.

8. PW-7 Dr. Smt. Kalpana Ravi deposed that on

18.03.2004 I was posted as lady doctor at District Hospital

Sidhi. On the aforesaid date, I examined the prosecutrix. There

was incised injury, measuring 1.5x2x1/4 CM, on labia minoril.

Hymen was ruptured. There was injury incised injury,

measuring 1x1x1 CM on posterior kemisore and blood was

oozing. There was swelling in the vagina of the prosecutrix and

she complained that she was feeling pain. The injuries suffered

by the prosecutrix were caused due to forceful sexual

intercourse.

9. PW-11 Yagya Sharan Mishra deposed that I was posted

as Head Constable at Jiyawan Police Station on 18.03.2004. On

the aforesaid date, Shakuntala Bai submitted a written complaint

and on the basis of that written complaint, FIR vide Ex.P10 was

registered and I signed the same.

10. PW-13 Ramesh Kumar Singh is the Investigating

Officer. He deposed that I conducted investigation of the case. I

recorded statements of the prosecutrix, Shiv Prasad Kushwaha,

Kamla Devi and Shakuntala Devi on 18.03.2004. I prepared spot

map on 19.03.2004, which is Ex.P4 and signed the same. On

-:- 5 -:-

Cr.A. No.2213 of 2004

19.03.2004, I recorded statements of Agnu Yadav, Raimuniya,

Lalman Kushwaha, Ramesh Kushwaha and Kishor Kumar @

Babbu. The appellant was arrested on 19.03.2004 vide arrest

Ex.P1 and signed the same. Accused was sent for medical

examination.

11. PW-5 Dr. A.K. Sharma examined the appellant. He

deposed that the appellant was capable to perform sexual

intercourse.

12. FIR is Ex.P10, which was lodged on the same date by

PW-1. In the FIR, it is mentioned that the appellant had

committed rape with the prosecutrix. As per the report of FSL

Ex.P13, blood was found on the underwear of the prosecutrix

and spots of sperm were also found. From the evidence of the

prosecutrix, her mother and the neighbours, this fact has been

proved that the appellant had committed rape with the

prosecutrix. The doctor PW-7, who examined the prosecutrix,

specifically deposed that she noticed injuries on the private part

of the prosecutrix. Those injuries were caused by forceful sexual

intercourse. At the time of incident, the prosecutrix was aged

about six years. Looking to the aforesaid facts on record, in our

opinion, the trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for

commission of offence punishable under Section 376(1)(h) of

-:- 6 -:-

Cr.A. No.2213 of 2004

IPC. The appellant has committed a heinous offence, hence, the

trial Court has awarded a proper sentence.

13. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is

hereby dismissed.

(S.K. Gangele) (Smt. Anjuli Palo)
Judge Judge

Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI
Date: 2018.01.04 12:32:12 +05’30’
vkt