SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Halki Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2018


(Division Bench)

M.Cr.C. No.2765/2017

Smt. Halki Bai
The State of Madkya Pradesh anr.

Shri Vinod Kumar Dubey, Advocate for the appellant.
Smt. Namrata Agrawal, Govt. Advocate for the respondent State.
Ms. Priyanka Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.2


Hon’ble Shri Justice Hemant Gupta, Chief Justice.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.


( Jabalpur, dtd.7.08.2018)

Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-

The present application has been filed under Section

374(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal

against the order dated 22-10-2016 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Bina, District Sagar in S.T. No.562/2012 [State of

M.P. vs. Prakash Singh Dangi and another] whereby the trial Court

has acquitted the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under

sections 450, 376(2)(g) and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 30-8-2000 at

about 11:00 PM in the Village Dhimrauli, when the prosecutrix was

in her house and her husband had gone to take `bidi’ and her children
were sleeping, at that time the accused persons, namely, Dhannalal

(since deceased) and Prakash Singh Dangi, respondent No.2 herein,

entered into the house and tried to outrage her modesty and when the

prosecutrix shouted the accused-respondent No.2 shut her mouth

pressing cloth and fell her down and as alleged, the prosecutrix was

subjected to rape by both the accused persons one by one. She did not

disclose the incident to anyone, as she was threatened by the accused

persons to be killed. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away and

children of the prosecutrix got up. When her husband returned she

narrated the incident to him and in the next morning, first information

report was lodged at the Police Station, Bina, District Sagar against

the accused persons in respect of the offence punishable under

sections 450, 376, 506-11/34 and 190 of the Indian Penal Code and

also under section 3(1)(xii) read with section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was sent for medico legal

examination. After completing necessary investigation, charge-sheet

was filed before the competent court of jurisdiction which, in turn,

committed the matter to the Court of Sessions. By the impugned

judgment, trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of the

alleged charges levelled against him.

4. It is vehemently urged by the counsel for the applicant
that the trial Court has erred in law disbelieving the statement of the

prosecutrix and acquitting the accused persons of the charges.

Statement of the prosecutrix has been supported by Tularam (PW-02),

her husband. When he came back to the house, incident was narrated

to him by the prosecutrix and in the morning report was lodged at the

Police Station concerned.

5. In the cross-examination the prosecutrix in para 8 has

stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were also living in the

same house and she did not raise any alarm when the accused persons

are alleged to have forcibly entered into the house and attempted to

ravish her sexually. Besides, the prosecutrix and her husband have

admitted that the incident was not disclosed to any neighbour or other

relatives. Though, she states in her statement that she shouted for help

and raised alarm, however, her in-laws, who were sleeping in the

courtyard of the house did not come.

6. In the medical examination of the prosecutrix conducted

by Dr. Saroj Bhuria, no any external injury was found on her person.

There was a single injury on her hip, but there was no allegation that

the accused-persons had caused any injury on the hip of the

prosecutrix. Further, the doctor in his medical report has stated that

no definite opinion can be given about commission or rape.

7. That, it was pleaded on behalf of the accused-respondent

No.2 that he has been falsely implicated, because at the time of the

alleged incident he was an elected Sarpanch of the Village. This fact

has been admitted by Tularam (PW-02) -husband of the prosecutrix.

8. In view of the totality of the circumstances, genesis of

the occurrence, character of evidence, especially testimony of the

prosecutrix which is not corroborated with medical evidence and

other cogent and plausible evidence, we do not find any jurisdictional

error in the impugned order of acquittal passed by the leaned trial

Court and the same is impeccable.

9. In view of aforesaid assimilation of facts and evidence,

we do not find any error in the order of acquittal passed by the

learned trial Court in appellate jurisdiction. The scope of interference

in appeal against acquittal is settled in various judgments.

10. In the case of Harbeer singh vs. Sheeshpal and others,

(2016) 16 SCC 418 the Apex Court referred earlier jugements

rendered in the cases of State Of U.P. vs. Harihar Bux Singh,

(1975) 3 SCC 167; State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar, (1979) 3 SCC

1; State of U.P. vs. Gopi, 1980 Supp SCC 160; State of Karnataka

vs. Amajappa, (2003) 9 SCC 468; State of U.P. vs. Banne, (2009) 4

SCC 271; State of U.P. vs. Guru Charan, (2010) 3 SCC 721; State
of Haryana vs. Shakuntla, (2012) 5 SCC 171; and Hamza vs.

Muhammedkutty, (2013) 11 SCC 150 and held that in case of

acquittal, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with appreciation

of evidence on on the findings of fact, unless the same is perverse or

manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. Mere fact that another view could

also have been taken on the evidence on record, is not a ground for

reversing conviction.

12. Thus, in the light of the above discussion, we are of the

view that the present application for grant of leave to appeal is devoid

of merit, and we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by

the leaned trial Court. The application is accordingly dismissed.

(Hemant Gupta) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge


Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2018.08.09 18:18:20 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


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