HC convicts accused in rape case
   Date :21-May-2019

 
Legal Correspondent:
 
In the matter connected to rape case, the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Justice, J K Maheshwari and Justice, Akhil Kumar Srivastava has said “We are of the considered opinion that in the present case, the testimony of the prosecutrix is wholly reliable. We find that the prosecutrix, aged above 16 years and under 18 years was forcibly raped by the respondents in furtherance of their common intention. The respondents are liable to be convicted under Section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment dated on September 8, 1994 is hereby set aside. We hold accused Virendra guilty for the charges punishable under Section 376 and co-accused Dharmendra for the charges punishable under Section 376/34 of IPC.
 
They are sentenced to undergo ten years RI with fine of Rs 20,000 which is to be paid to the prosecutrix. In default of payment of fine, the accused-respondents shall further undergo one year RI.” The division bench added “The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender immediately before the concerned trial court to undergo the sentence, failing which, the trial court shall take appropriate action under intimation to the Registry. Copy of this order be sent to the court below for information and compliance. Record be also sent back.
 
Appeal stands allowed.” The division bench has heard the criminal appeal filed by State Government of Madhya Pradesh against the Pakshi alias Virendra alias Dharmendra. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-State of MP against the judgment dated on September 8, 1994 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in session trial, whereby, the accused/respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Section 376 read with Section 34 of IPC. Prosecution case in brief is that on November 4, 1992, at 8.45 in the morning, complainant Bhagirath lodged an oral report at Police Station Prithvipur that in the intervening night of November, 3 and 4, 1992, his wife, two daughters, including the prosecutrix, were sleeping on the terrace. At about 2.30 in the night, he heard shouts of her daughter, Prosecutrix.
 
They went to the place from where her daughter was shouting. They saw accused Virendra and Dharmendra coming out from the liquor shop. From the same liquor shop, their daughter Prabha came out crying and when his wife asked her daughter, she told that, when she was going for nature’s call, at that time, accused Virendra and Dharmendra both dragged her inside the liquor shop. Dharmendra was guarding the door and Virendra committed rape on her.
 
 
When hue and cry was raised by the prosecutrix complainant, Bhagirath and his wife reached at the spot and brought the girl back home. In the morning, the incident was narrated to the villagers thereafter a complaint was lodged at the police station. On such complaint, lodged by the complainant at Police Station Prithvipur, crime under Section 376 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against the accused persons and investigation was triggered. During investigation, prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. Statement of witnesses was recorded and spot inspection was done. After investigation, accused Virendra was found guilty of the charges punishable under Section 376 and co-accused Dharmendra for the charges punishable under Section 376/34 of IPC for which chargesheet was filed in the competent court. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence on the ground that they have been falsely implicated in the case.
 
Counsel for the State has contended that evidence of the prosecutrix clearly discloses that Virendra committed forceful sexual intercourse with her and Dharmendra was guarding the door. It is also submitted that, there is ample evidence to show that the age of the prosecutrix was 15-16 years at the time of incident. It is further contended that the evidence of prosecutrix is corroborated by the evidence of doctor. The trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record produced by the prosecution in its proper manner and that the trial court, by mis-appreciating the evidence on record, has wrongly come to the conclusion of acquittal of the accused respondents.