SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State Of M.P. vs Ramji Lal on 9 August, 2018

1
CRA No. 126/2008
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjilal

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DIVISION BENCH
BEFORE: HON.SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV
AND
HON. SHRI JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI

Criminal Appeal No. 126/2008
State of Madhya Pradesh
Through Police Station Kolaras
District Shivpuri (MP).
…. Appellant
Vs.
Ramjilal S/o Chakhra Jatav,
…. Respondent

Smt. Sangeeta Pachauri, learned public prosecutor
for the appellant/ State.
None for the respondent though represented.

JUDGMENT

(09/08/2018)

Per Ashok Kumar Joshi,J.:

Challenge in this appeal filed by the State of
M.P./appellant u/s. 378 of the Cr.P.C is to the
judgement dated 21st of July, 2007 passed by
Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in S.T. No. 25/2007,
whereby the present respondent was acquitted from
the charge of Sec. 376 (1) of the IPC.

2. Undisputedly, present respondent was
arrested on 17.11. 2006.

3. Prosecution’s case in brief is that on 6.11.

2

CRA No. 126/2008
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjilal

2006 at 6:30 am at Police Station Kolaras
complainant (PW-4)/married lady aged about 30
years lodged FIR (Ex. P-4) to the effect that in last
night i.e. on 5.11. 2006 at 8:30 pm prosecutrix’s
husband went in to the village for bringing bidis
after keeping food for cow in utensil and has
instructed complainant to put relating food to cow.
Thereafter when complainant after lifting the utensil
went nearer to cow for keeping its food, then
respondent Ramjilal Jatav who was seated there
hiding himself suddenly hugged prosecutrix and lay
down prosecutrix/complainant on ground and
thereafter Ramjilal inserted complainant’s sari in
her mouth, so complainant was unable to cry.
Thereafter, respondent inserted his male organ in
private parts of complainant and committed
forcefully rape with her and after completing rape,
respondent left the complainant, then she cried and
till then her husband Banwari (PW-5) came back to
house so after seeing Banwari, Ramjilal fled away.
During scuffle, the button of complainant’s blouse
got broken and her bangles were also got broken.
After crying of her husband, neighbourers also
gathered, who were intimated but as incident
occurred in night, on next morning prosecutrix
with her husband reached Police Station, Kolaras
and lodged FIR, which was inscribed by Sub-
Inspector O.P. Tantawar (PW-7).

4. After lodging FIR prosecutrix (PW-4) was
3
CRA No. 126/2008
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjilal

sent to Primary Health Center, Kolaras where Dr.
Sandhya Morya (PW-1) medically and sexually
examined her and also sealed prosecutrix peticoat
and underwear and also prepared a slide of vaginal
smear of the prosecutrix and sent the sealed
material through constable to relating Police Station
and recorded her report (Ex. P-1) but as prosecutrix
was married lady and habitual of sexual intercourse,
lady doctor was unable to record any finding
regarding rape. On 6.6. 2011 Investigating Officer
O.P. Tantwar (PW-7) prepared spot map ( Ex. P-5)
and respondent was arrested on 17.11. 2006 vide
arrest memo (Ex. P-7) and sent to P.H.C Kolaras for
medical examination. Dr. R.K. Rishishwar (PW-6) on
18.11. 2006 sexaually examined respondent and
found him capable for committing sexual intercourse
and recorded his report (Ex.P-6). Sealed materials
were sent to FSL for medical examination. After
completing formalities of investigation chargesheet
was filed in the court of JMFC, Kolaras, who
committed arisen criminal case to Sessions Judge,
Shivpuri, who transferred sessions trial to Fourth
Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. Later on, it was
transferred to the court of Sessions Judge, Shivpuri.

5. Respondent abjured guilt. Eight
prosecution witnesses were examined before the
trial court. It was the defence of respondent that he
has been falsely implicated in the crime. No defence
witness was examined. The trial court after hearing,
4
CRA No. 126/2008
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjilal

disbelieving the evidence of prosecutrix and
acquitted the respondent from the charged offence,
hence this Criminal Appeal.

7. Appearing, learned public prosecutor on
behalf of appellant/State vehementaly contended
that the prosecutrix’s (PW-4) evidence was
materially corroborated by the evidence of her
husband Banwari (PW-5) but the trial court erred
in acquitting the respondent.

8. Prosecurix (PW-4) deposed that at the time
of incident her husband in the night has gone in the
village for bringing bidis and, thereafter when she
went nearer to their cow for keeping pot of its
food, then respondent after hugging her, thrown her
on ground and committed “bura kaam” (intercourse)
with her and at the same time her husband came
back to their house, thereafter respondent fled
away and during rape her blouse got torned and
button of the blouse got broken and as respondent
inserted her sari in her mouth, she could not cry
and thereafter with her husband, she went to
Kolaras Police Station and lodged FIR (Ex. P-5) and
in her presence at her house a blouse and broken
angles were seized by police and her petticoat was
sealed by lady doctor. The incident occurred at 8:00
pm in Prosecutrix’s hut in bakhar which was used
for tiding their cow. Prosecutrix deposed that at the
time of incident there was darkness at the place of
occurrence and at that time her four children and
5
CRA No. 126/2008
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjilal

Ajia Sas were sleeping in house and her Ajia Sas
was deaf and nearer to the hut, houses of Bharosa
and Amar Singh are situated, wherein they lived
with their families. She deposed that her husband
returned back 10 to 15 minutes late after the
incident and people of the village was gathered and
they were intimated about the incident. She deposed
that respondent committed rape with her for a
period of half an hour.

9. Banwari (PW-5) deposed that on the date
of incident in the night at 9 pm he went to in the
village for bringing bidi and then after some period
he returned back to house and when he was coming
back, he saw that Ramjilal was fleeing away from his
hut, then he chased him and when he returned back
to his house then her wife was weeping in courtyard
of their house and after incident neighbourers have
gathered who were advising him to keep patience
and for not reporting the matter. Banwari clearly
deposed that in the same night he went to Police
Station with her wife for lodging report, but it is
clear from the evidence of inscriber of FIR (Ex.P-4)
that FIR was lodged on next day i.e. on 6.11. 2006 at
6: 30 am by O.P. Tantwar. Prosecutrix (PW-4) has
deposed nothing about the day and time of the
lodging of the report. In the FIR, in printed column
no. 8, the reason of late reporting is mentioned that
as incident occurred in night, on next day report
was lodged. The mentioned reason of late reporting
6
CRA No. 126/2008
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjilal

is not supported by the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-

4) and her husband Banwari (PW-5). On the
contrary, Banwari stated that FIR was lodged in the
same night.

10. Prosecutrix (PW-4) clearly deposed in
para-6 that she was not weeping after the incident,
therefore her husband Banwari’s evidence is
contradicted by prosecutrix herself.

11. Some important facts came in the
evidence of prosecutrix (PW-4) and her husband
Banwari (PW-5), which indicate that after incident,
prosecutrix’s husband was having suspicioun that
her wife called respondent on the scene of
occurrence. Prosecutrix clearly deposed in para-6
that after returning to house, her husband was
asking to her that whether she called Ramjilal or he
voluntaririly came there, then he replied that
Ramjilal voluntaririly came to their house and in
para-7 she deposed that thereafter firsly they went
to the house of Ramjilal and thereafter they went
for lodging report on foot. In para-6, prosecutrix
also deposed that she was taken by her husband to
the house of Ramjilal after the incident for
enquiring from Ramjilal that whether he was called
by prosecutrix. Banwari (PW-5) also deposed in his
cross-examination that respondent Ramjilal was
desirous to make his wife as respondent’s wife
by force, but Banwari deposed in cross-examination
that after the incident he had gone to respondent’s
7
CRA No. 126/2008
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjilal

house and there he complained regarding incident
to respodent’s mother. Banwari in cross-examination
denied the suggestion given by the defence counsel
that after incident he was enquiring from his wife
that she had called Ramjilal on the scene of
occurrence, but on this point Banwari’s evidence is
falsified by the evidence of her wife (PW-4). Banwari
deposed in para-5 that at the time of incident his
wife’s cloths were got dirty by cowdung, whereas
his wife clearly deposed in para-6 that at the time of
incident, her cloths were not got stained from
cowdung and before lodging report, she went to
respondent’s house for complaint. Therefore, it is
clear that there are material contradictions
between evidence of prosecutrix and her husband
Banwari (PW-5) and it is clear from the evidence of
prosecutrix that her husband was having doubt just
after the incident that she herself had invited
respondent at the scene of occurrence.

12. Prosecutrix (PW-4) clearly deposed in
paras 5 and 6 that at the time of rape she was
pushing respondent and was trying to push
respondent by her hands but during intercourse she
did not receive any injury and respondent has
forcefully hugged her. It is clear that at the time of
incident prosecutrix was a married lady aged about
35 years, but she did not receive any injury on her
body as it is clear evidence of herself and from the
evidence of lady doctor and her report (Ex. P-1).

8

CRA No. 126/2008
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjilal

The lady doctor also did not find any external
injury on body and private parts of the prosecutrix
and as being a married lady prosecutrix was
habitual of intercourse. Lady doctor found herself
unable to give any definite opinion regarding rape.
Allegedely a button of blouse of prosecutrix was
broken and her bangles were broken which were
seized by investigating officer O.P. Tantwar (PW-7)
vide seizure memo (Ex. P-2), but surprisingly
prosecutrix did not receive any injury on her body
and her private parts. All these facts and
circumstances indicated that if any sexual
intercourse was committed by the respondent with
prosecutrix (PW-4) then she was definitely a
consenting party and her evidence that at the time
of alleged intercourse she was pushing respondent
by her hands and legs appears to be totally far away
from the truth. These findings also got
corroboration from the evidence of Banwari that
gathered persons were advising him to keep mum
and for not reporting the matter.

13. In such a state of evidence, possibility
could not be ruled out that respondent might have
come as pre-planned and committed intercouse
with her consent, but as at the same time, her
husband suddently returned back, prosecutirx in her
defence make complaint against respondent about
rape. It is clear from the total evidence available on
record that it was not proved that sexual intercourse
9
CRA No. 126/2008
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjilal

at the relevant time was committed with the
prosecutrix (PW-4) against her will or without her
consent.

14. We are of the considered opinion that the
Sessions Judge has properly and legally analysed
and appreciated the entire evidence available on
record and did not err in acquitting the respondent
from the charged offence. It is clear that State’s
Appeal agaist judgment of acquittal is without any
substance and is liable to be dismissed.

15. Consequently, the appeal filed by the
appellant/State u/s. 3 78 of the Cr.P.C against the
impugned judgment of acquittal is hereby dismissed.
With a copy of this judgment, the record of the trial
court be sent back immediately.

(Sanjay Yadav) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
ar Judge Judge
09/08/2018 09/08/2018

ABDUR RAHMAN
2018.08.10 18:17:25 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh