Vijay Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon''ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Sharma

Appellant has filed this appeal u/s 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code against judgment dated 31.03.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 108/1995 by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) (MP), whereby appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Brief facts of the case are that in the night of 02.05.1995, when prosecutrix (PW-9) (name of the prosecutrix has not been mentioned to hide her identity) went for ease out of her house, it is alleged that appellant took her in Nala(rivulet) of Laxmanpura and for two days, she was kept there and raped by the appellant. Thereafter, when she became unconscious, appellant put her in the Badiye. When the prosecutrix became conscious, she narrated the story to her family members and lodged a report against appellant. Thereafter, a challan has been filed against appellant and trial Court, after trial of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted him for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376/511 IPC by the impugned judgment.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the matter and the learned trial Court has erred in believing the statement of prosecution witnesses, which are unreliable.

Only question for consideration in this appeal is whether learned trial Court is justified in convicting appellant by the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is undisputed that prosecutrix (PW-9) is a major lady. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that prosecutrix remained with the appellant for two days in Nala(according to her statement) and she never tried to escape from there. Further, there is omission regarding the fact that prosecutrix became unconscious and in the state of unconsciousness, appellant has left her in the Badiya. Therefore, from the evidence of prosecutrix herself and considering omissions regarding her unconsciousness, it is clear that she went with her own consent with the appellant and she remained for two days with the appellant, without both having taken food in those two days and she never tried to escape from the company of accused/appellant. Therefore, there was no sufficient evidence for holding appellant guilty for offence punishable u/s 366 or offence punishable u/s 376 read with Section 511 IPC. Therefore, learned trial Court has erred in convicting appellant by the impugned judgment. Therefore, appeal is allowed and judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 511 IPC. Bail bonds of the appellant are discharged.