HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
DIVISION BENCH
Honâble Mr. Justice Rajeev Kumar Dubey,
Honâble Mr. Justice Subodh Abhyankar, JJ.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 502 OF 2004
Ram Narayan Sharma.
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh.
sh
————————————————————————————–
Shri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant as Amicus Curiae.
e
ad
Shri Manish Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/ State.
Pr
—————————————————————————————
a
hy
JUDGMENT
ad
M
(Delivered on this the 20th day of February, 2018)
of
PER: Subodh Abhyankar,J.
rt
ou
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
C
has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order
h
dated 16/02/2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST
ig
H
No.208/2003, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376 (1)
and 501 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and one yearâs RI
respectively.
2. The prosecution case in short is that between 18.4.2003 to 19.5.2003 the
appellant committed rape of his own daughter aged 14 years at his house
situated at Dilkush, Aishbagh, Bhopal. The information regarding the
aforesaid offence of rape was initially communicated by the prosecutrix
(PW-5) to one Nathu Singh (PW-6), who was an old acquaintance of the
family and was considered as grand father by the prosecutrix. Thereafter an
FIR (Ex.P-6) was lodged at the concerned Police Station. The prosecutrix was
medically examined by the doctors and after completing the investigation,
charge sheet was filed against the present appellant before the competent
Court, and the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal after recording the evidence
of the witnesses convicted the present appellant under Sections 376(1), 506
of IPC and sentenced as aforesaid.
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence the
instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
4. Shri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
sh
the appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter, and the learned trial
e
ad
Court has committed a grave error in convicting the present appellant for the
Pr
aforesaid offences, as in the MLC report of the prosecutrix (PW-5), the doctor
has opined that the prosecutrix is habitual to intercourse and there were no
a
hy
external or internal injury on the body of the prosecutrix, and as such no
ad
opinion regarding commission of rape has been given. Learned counsel for
M
the appellant has further submitted that the independent witness Farhana
of
Khan (PW-3) has been declared hostile and has not supported the case of the
rt
prosecution. It is also emphasized that the appellant was the tenant of this
ou
witness PW-3 and as such her evidence cannot be lightly brushed aside.
C
Under these circumstances the finding of guilt is erroneous, which deserves
h
to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.
ig
5. On the other hand, Shri Manish Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on
H
behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment, finding and
sentence mainly contending that the prosecutrix happens to be the daughter of
the appellant and there is no reason for her to falsely implicate her own father. It
is further submitted that the prosecutrix had also written a letter Ex.P-7 to his
acquaintance Nathu Singh (PW-6) regarding her plight which is also on record.
Thus, the evidence has been properly appreciated by the learned Judge of the trial
Court and the present appellant has been rightly convicted. Therefore, it is prayed
that the present appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Dr. C.S. Jain has been examined as PW-1, who examined the prosecutrix. He has
stated that the age of the prosecutrix was around 14 years. Dr. Vinita Agrawal
PW-2 has stated that she had examined the prosecutrix on 19.5.2003 and did not
find any external or internal injury on the body of the prosecutrix. She also found
the hymen of the prosecutrix to be ruptured, although she has stated that the
prosecutrix informed her that her father is raping her since last one month. Thus,
it stands proved that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years at the time of the incident
and was subjected to sexual intercourse.
sh
8. Farhana Khan (PW-3), who happens to be the landlady of the appellant has been
e
ad
declared hostile, although she has been confronted with her initial statement
Pr
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that the prosecutrix had
informed her that her father does wrong things to her. She is also a witness to the
a
hy
seizure of bed sheet, which was recovered from the house of the appellant.
ad
9. JPS Kuswaha (PW-4) was the Investigating Officer. He has proved the FIR
M
(Ex.P-6) as also the letter Ex.P-7 written by the prosecutrix, which was brought by
of
Nathu Singh. The spot map (Ex.P-9) was also prepared by him and he also seized
rt
the clothes of the prosecutrix, her slides etc. vide Ex.P-10. He also recorded the
ou
statement of witnesses and vide Ex.P-12 he sent the seized articles to the FSL
C
Gwalior.
h
10. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW-5 and she has fully supported the
ig
case of the prosecution. She has deposed in the Court that her father, the
H
appellant herein had raped her for around 10-15 times and also threatened her
with dire consequences when she refused to cooperate. She has also stated that
she informed about the incident only to Nathu Singh PW-6 and then lodged the
FIR. She has also confirmed that she had written a letter (Ex.P-7) to Nathu Singh
PW-6 regarding her plight. She has been cross examined at length but nothing
substantive could be extracted from her examination. She has denied that she had
affair with Niranjan son of Nathu Singh, and as her father saw her in a compromise
position with him, in order to falsely implicate her father, she has lodged a false
report against him. The aforesaid suggestion has been denied by the prosecutrix.
11. Nathu Singh (PW-6) has also supported the case of the prosecution. He has
stated that initially when the prosecutrix informed him regarding rape upon her by
her own father, he could not believe her and slapped her but ultimately he took
her to the police station to lodge an FIR. He has also proved the letter written by
the prosecutrix to him, which is on record as Ex.P-7. He has been put to such a
question that the appellant was involved with the prosecutrix, in order to falsely
implicate him, the aforesaid suggestion has been denied by this witness.
12. In the present case, the FIR was lodged on 19.5.2003 and the date of incident
sh
is said to be between 18.4.2003 to 19.5.2003, the reason for such delay is
e
ad
anybodyâs guess. In such circumstances, lodging of FIR after one month cannot
Pr
be said to be after an inordinate delay. Her letter Ex.P-7, which is also on record
clearly reveals the testimony of the prosecutrix and there is no reason to
a
hy
disbelieve the aforesaid letter written by the prosecutrix regarding her fatherâs
ad
misdemeanor.
M
13. In the accused statement the appellant has taken a plea that he had a quarrel
of
with Nathu Singh, who had threatened him to falsely implicate in such a case,
rt
however the aforesaid plea has not been proved in any manner and there is
ou
nothing on record to show that Nathu Singh had any dispute with the appellant.
C
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that present
h
appellant had committed rape of his own daughter, who was aged 14 years and
ig
was residing with him and had reposed her faith in him, but defying every single
H
norm of ethical behavior, the appellant committed rape on her. Under these
circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere in the findings recorded by
the learned Judge of the trial Court.
15. In the result, the criminal appeal filed by appellant Ram Narayan Sharma is
hereby dismissed. The appellant is in jail, he shall serve the remaining jail
sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court in accordance with law.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) (Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge Judge
20/02/2018 20/02/2018.
Ansari.
Digitally signed by
MANZOOR AHMED
Date: 2018.02.20 20:55:37
-08’00’
sh
e
ad
Pr
a
hy
ad
M
of
rt
ou
C
h
ig
H
