SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State Of M.P. vs Ravindra Raghuvanshi on 9 August, 2018

1
Cr.A No. 94/2006
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ravindra Raghuvanshi and ors.

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. 94/2006
State of Madhya Pradesh
Through Police Station Nai Sarai
District Ashok Nagar (MP).
…. Appellant
Vs.
Ravindra Raghuvanshi and Three Ors.
…. Respondents

Smt Sangeeta Pachauri, learned public
prosecutor for the appellant/ State.
Shri O.P. Mathur, learned counsel for
respondents.

JUDGMENT

(09/08/2018)

Per Ashok Kumar Joshi,J.:

This appeal has been filed by the
appellant/State of M.P. against judgment dated 7.7.
2005 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge,
Ashok Nagar, District Guna in S.T. No. 177/2002,
whereby each of the present respondents no. 1, 2 and
3 was acquitted from the charge of Sec. 366, 376 (2)

(g) and Sec. 384/34 of the IPC.

2. Undisputedly, Prosecutrix (PW-2) filed a
private complaint before the Court of JMFC,
2
Cr.A No. 94/
2006
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ravindra Raghuvanshi and ors.

Ashoknagar which was registered and arisen criminal
case was committed to Sessions Judge, Guna, who
transferred the relating sessions trial to Additional
Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar.

3. Prosecution’s case in brief is that married
complainant aged about 19 years filed private
complaint before JMFC Ashoknagar alleging that
complainant belongs to scheduled cast and prior to
the incident she was married with Kalyan resident of
village Bakspur, but before the date of incident 31.12.
2000 complainant came to her father’s house in
village Raipura from her matrimonial house and in
the mid-night at about 1:30 or 2:00 am when
complainant came out from the house for answering
the call of nature, then she was caught hold by
respondents Ramesh and Ravindra, who pressed her
mouth and thereafter both these respondents got
complainant seated on motor-cycle driven by
respondent Ramesh and at that time respondent
Ravindra get her mouth pressed from behind and
after giving life threat to her after showing knife.
By motor-cycle she was taken to village Isri Chowki
where other respondent was also present and
complainant was locked in a room wherein each of the
respondents 1, 2 and 3 committed gang rape with her
one after another. On next date complainant was
threatened by relating respondents that she should
marry with respondent Ramesh and got attested an
affidavit in the court campus Kolaras regarding
3
Cr.A No. 94/
2006
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ravindra Raghuvanshi and ors.

marriage with Ramesh otherwise she and her father
would be killed. Thereafter complainant got much
puzzled and she was taken by the respondents to
Kolaras Court premises, where her thumb
impressions were taken on some papers, and being an
illiterate person complainant was not aware that what
was written in relating papers. On that day
respondents were armed with Ballam, Farsa and they
also gave life threat to complainant and thereby false
affidavit regarding forceful marriage or natra with
Ramesh were prepared.

4. As complainant’s father lodged her missing
report at Police Station Nai Sarai and thereafter at
Harijan Prakosht, Guna, so she was taken from
Kolaras to unknown village where she was kept in a
room for a period of 15 days, where each respondent
committed rape with her, and thereafter she was aken
to village Kalabagh, where she was kept for a period
of 20 days and there also she was being subjected to
gang rape by each of the respondents and thereafter
she was brought to village Bhora where her rape
remain continued. On 25.3. 2001 when complainant’s
in-laws and her parents got information that
complainant is kept in village Kala Bagh, then
complainant’s father-in-law and other family members
gave intimation at Police Station Nai Sarai, but police
did not pay any heed to the intimation, so her family
members reached to village Kala Bagh for getting her
free and they got complainant freed from abduction,
4
Cr.A No. 94/
2006
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ravindra Raghuvanshi and ors.

but at that time respondents attacked on the family
members of complainant and respondents lodged a
false report at police station and got a criminal case
registered against her family members. Complainant
gave written applications dated 16.4. 2001 to
Superintendent of Police, Guna, S.H.O, Police Station
Nai Sarai and Harijan Prakosht, Guna but police not
proceeded against respondents, theerafter she filed
private complaint which later on got registered and
arisen criminal case was committed to Sessins Court.

5. Tried respondents Ravindra, Ramesh and
Sitaram abjurfed guilt. Before the trial court seven
prosecution witnesses were examined. It was defence
of present respondents no. 1 to 3 that they have been
falsely implicated and at the time of cutting of crop at
Kalabagh an incident had occurred, wherein family
members of respondents received injuries and in
relating case, some prosecution witnesses and their
family members were convicted and sentenced and
only for creating pressure to compel them for
compromise, false private complaint got lodged after
pressurising complainant. Ramcharan (DW-1) was
examined before the trial court, who deposed that for
the last 5 to 6 years complainant is living with
respondent Ramesh as her wife.

6. After hearing, the trial court acquitted each
of the present respondents from charges framed
against them. Hence this criminal appeal against
acquittal.

5

Cr.A No. 94/2006
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ravindra Raghuvanshi and ors.

7. Appering learned public prosecutor on
behalf of appellant/State vehementaly contends that
it was proved from the evidence of
prosecutrix/complainant (PW-2), which was
corroborated by the evidence of complainant’s
husband Kalyan (PW-3) and Suresh (PW-4) that
complainant was abducted on the date of incident by
Ravindra and Ramesh to compel her to marry with
Ramesh against her will or to seduce herself to have
illicit intercourse with Ramesh and other respondents
and thereafter she was gang raped by respondetns
but learned trial court erred in acquitting the relating
respondents from the charged offence. Therefore, it is
prayed that respondents be convicted and adequately
sentenced for charged offence.

8. Complainant/ prosecutrix (PW-2) deposed
that in the night on the date of incident she was in
her father’s house, though prior to it she was married
to Kalyan resident of village Bakspur, but in the night
when she came out from her father’s house for
answring the call of nature, then respondents
Ravindra and Ramesh took her through a motor cycle
to Isri Chowki and after her lifting Ramesh was
driving motor-cycle and Ravindra pressed her mouth,
so she was unable to call anyone. In village Isri
Chowki she was kept in a separate room, where
Ramesh and Ravindra committed rape with her one
after another and in village Isri Chowki she was
raped by other persons also. Complainant (PW-2)
6
Cr.A No. 94/
2006
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ravindra Raghuvanshi and ors.

deposed that after keeping her in village Isri Chowki
for two days, she was taken to Kolaras and in the way
she was threatened after showing knife and her
signatures were taken on papers that in future she
would reside with Ramesh as her wife and thereafter
she was firstly taken to village Chamarpura, where
she was raped for a period of about 20 days and
rape was committed with her by Ramesh as any
husband commits with her wife and thereafter she
was taken to village Kalabagh by Ramesh and
Ravindra, where in house of Ramesh she was being
kept and she was not permitted to come out from the
house.

9. Complainant (PW-2) deposed that during
period of her stay at village Kala Bagh one day when
she had gone for answering the call of nature, then he
intimated to her nephew who incidentally met her,
that her father be informend that she was being taken
for cutting wheat crop and thereafter on one day
when she was cutting crop in a field of Kala Bagh then
her brother Devilal, her husband Kalyan , her father-
in- law Tulsiram and Kashiram and some other
persons came there and she told Ramesh that now
she is going with her brothers, then Ramesh inflicted
Farsa blows to her brother Devilal and later on she
went to village Bakspur with her husband Kalyan and
and thereafter she reached to police station Naisarai
for reporting, but police did not write her report then
she intimated S.P., Guna and thereafter filed private
7
Cr.A No. 94/
2006
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ravindra Raghuvanshi and ors.

complaint.

10. Suresh (PW-4) resident of village Kalaripura
deposed that complainant is her neighbourer and
respondents also reside in his village and about two
years ago when in the night at 1:30 or 2 :00 am she
came out from the house for answering call of nature
then he saw that by a motorcycle, which was being
driven by respondent Ramesh, complainant was being
taken and pillion rider respondent Ravindra had
pressed the mouth of complainant and in the same
night he informed complainant’s father about this
incident.

11. Kalyan (PW-3) deposed that complainant is
her wife and respondents are residents of adjoining
village of her in-laws village and prior to incident her
wife complainant (PW-2) was taken by her father to
village Raipura and about 8 days after complainant’s
brother Devilal informed him that complainant has
been abducted by Ravindra and Ramesh and after the
release of his wife, complainant intimated him that
she was abducted by Ramesh and in total 8 to 9
persons committed rape with her in village Isri
Chowki. Kalyan (PW-3) also deposed that after
abduction of his wife Devilal informed that
complainant is in village Kala Bagh then he with his
father and other relatives went to Kala bagh and
found that his wife (complainant) was cutting wheat
crop in a village and respondent Ravindra, Ramesh
and Sitaram were with her and after looking them
8
Cr.A No. 94/
2006
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ravindra Raghuvanshi and ors.

complainant came in their side, thereafter Ramesh
gave a pharsa injury by blunt side on waist of the
complainant and thereafter complainant was taken by
him and his father to their house Bakspur.

12. Kalyan also deposed that his father-in-law
and his father have reported the matter at Police
Station Naisarai but relating police gave no heed to it
as respondents have given money to the polcie.
Kalyan (PW-3) clearly admited in his cross-
examination that he and his relatives have been
convicted and sentenced in relating criminal case
lodged on the report of respondents for causing
injuries to them, but he deposed that relating
respondents lodged false report. Complainant
/prosecutrix (PW-2) firstly deposed in paragraph 16
before trial court that she is having no knowledge
about trial of her husband Kalyan, father-in-law and
her father for causing injuries to the present
respondents, but in next breath she deposed that her
brother Tulsi, husband Kalyan have been bailed out
and seven other persons are detained in jail for a
period of one and half years.

13. In relating trial, complainant (PW-2) was
examined on 25. 11. 2002, wherein she was
confronted with her prior deposition given by her in
sessions trial no. 242/2001 before first ASJ,
Ashoknagar on 11.12. 2001 wherein in first para’s
marked portion as A to A of certified copy of her
deposition (Ex. D-1), she deposed that on the date of
9
Cr.A No. 94/
2006
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ravindra Raghuvanshi and ors.

incident in vaishakh month when crop of wheat was
being cut, then she was taken to village Kala Bagh
for cutting of wheat crop by Ramesh and in relating
agricultural land and she was cutting wheat with
Ramesh, Sitaram and Latoori and prior to it she was
living with Ramesh for past three months. Present
complainant’s previous deposition (Ex. D-1) dated
11.12. 2001 was recorded in relating court as PW-13.
Though in cross-examination on 25.11. 2002 after
confronting on the prior deposition she refused to
depose A to A marked above mentioned portion in her
earlier deposition (Ex. D-1), but it is clear from her
total evidence and even by her conduct before the
trial court after recording of her statement that she
was regularly changing her version and some time she
was deposing in favour of her first husband Kalyan
and at another time she was deposing in favour of
Ramesh.

14. The prosecution version regarding on the
date of incident 31.12. 2002, it could not be expected
by respondents Ramesh and Ravindra or any other
person that complainant would come out of her
father’s house in mid-night at 1:30 or 2 pm for
answering call of nature, then she would be abducted
by motor-cycle. Such eventualities could be hapenned
only after pre-arrangment and prior consent.

15. It is clear from the record of trial court that
trial court on 23.6. 2009 decided an application dated
26.6. 2004 filed by the accused persons/present
10
Cr.A No. 94/
2006
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ravindra Raghuvanshi and ors.

respondents filed u/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C for re-
examination of complainant, and by the same order
another application filed by the complainant PW-
dated 24.3. 2003 filed u/s. 311 of the
Cr.P.C was also
decided and in the application dated 24.3. 2003
complainant has revealed that her prior deposition
before the trial court was given by her under
pressure and compulsion of her prior husband Kalyan
and her father and mother and her evidence recorded
on 25. 11. 2002 is totally false and now she is willing
to reveal real facts. Though the trial court dismissed
complainant’s application filed u/s. 311 of the
Cr.P.C
vide its order dated 23. 6. 2005, but it is clear that it
has been observed by the trial court that it was clear
that after recording of her depostion before trial court
she has comprosmised the matter with the present
respondents and now she is desiring to change his
evidence.

16. It is clear that in the incident, which
occurred on 26.3. 2001 wherein complainant (PW-

2) was got freed after alleged abduction, an incident
occurred in relation to which on report of the
respondents or their family members criminal case
was registered against family members parents, and
husband of the complainant and they got convicted
and it appears that only after initiation of criminal
case on report of respondents a written application
(Ex. P-2) dated 16.6. 2001 was sent by complainant to
S.P., Guna, S.H.O, Police Station Nai Sarai and other
11
Cr.A No. 94/
2006
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ravindra Raghuvanshi and ors.

police officials and private complaint was presented
by the complainant on 17.5. 2001, whereas she was
allegedely got freed on 26.3. 2001. In these facts and
circumstances, this possibility could not be ruled out
that married complainant (PW-2) went with Ramesh
voluntarity and resided with him as his wife for
sufficient period and when another criminal incident
occurred on 26.3. 2001, wherein she was taken or
she went with her first husband Kalyan and his family
members. She did not submit any timely report or
application or private complaint against present
respondents and as Ramcharan (defence witness no.

1) has clearly deposed that for the last five to six
years complainant (PW-2) is residing and living with
respondent Ramesh as his wife and Ramesh resides
in Kala Bagh though he admitted in cross-examination
that complainant is not married wife of Ramesh.

17. The facts deposed by Ramcharan (PW-1)
and the conduct of the complainant in the shape of
filing application u/s. 311 of the
Cr.P.C after recording
of her deposition before the trial court provide
corroboration of the defence raised by respondent
Ramesh in his examination conducted by the tiral
court u/s. 313 of the
Cr.P.C that complainant had
volutarily resided with him because her husband
Kalyan was drunkard and he gave beating to her,
hence complainant started living with him and in
another criminal case occurred on the date of cutting
of wheat crop. Complainant’s husband Kalyan, father-

12

Cr.A No. 94/2006
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ravindra Raghuvanshi and ors.

in- law and her brothers were convicted and
sentenced. Therefore, the possibility could not be
ruled out that after initiation of criminal case against
the husband and other family members of
complainant, private complaint by complainant was
lodged for pressurising the present respondents for
getting ready to compromise after cooking a story of
gang rape by two real brothers respondents Ramesh
and Sitaram with same lady, which prima facie,
appears to be unnatural and unbelievable, whereas it
is alleged that complainant was being compelled to
marry respondent Ramesh.

18. The trial court has observed in para
numbers 20 and 21 of its judgment the facts in detail
and it was clear from the application dated 24.3.
2004 filed by the complainant before the trial court
that at that time she was living with respondent
Ramesh as his wife. In such facts and circumstances,
prima facie, it appears that on the date of incident
being a major and married lady she had voluntarily
gone with respondent Ramesh for living with him. In
such situation, all the findings recorded by the trial
court appears to be just and proper.

19. 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 respondents from the
charged offences. It is clear that State’s Appeal
against judgment of acquittal is without any substance
13
Cr.A No. 94/
2006
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ravindra Raghuvanshi and ors.

and is liable to be dismissed.

20. Consequently, the appeal filed by the
appellant/State u/s. 378 of the
Cr.P.C against the
impugned judgment of acquittal is hereby dismissed.
With a copy of this judgment, the record of 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 18:32:32 +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