LexBHAIYAMIYAN @ JARDAR KHAN & ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1044
BHAIYAMIYAN @ JARDAR KHAN & ANR.
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
{Criminal Appeal No. 802 of 2004)
MAY 3, 2011
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
PRASAD, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.376(2)(g) - Gang rape -A/legation
C of - FIR lodged 60 hours after the incident at a police station
about 22 km away from place of incident though police station
of the village where incident took place was only 7 km away
- Medical examination conducted in hospital 55 kms away
on insistence of the prosecutrix who refused to be medically
D examined at place where FIR was lodged - As per medical
evidence, no injury was found on person and there was no
evidence of rape - Trial court found that prosecution case was
doubtful and ordered acquittal - High Court held that order
of trial court was perverse and convicted the accused ul
E s.376(2)(g) -
On appeal, held: Explanation for delay in
lodging FIR was unbelievable - Prosecution could not explain
why prosecutrix insisted in medical examination at hospital
55 kms away - As per medical report, there was no injury on
her genital and no evidence to show that she had been raped
F - Cumulative effect of evidence showed that view of trial court
was possible - High Court ought not to have interfered with
the decision of trial court - Conviction set aside - Appeal
against acquittal.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
G No. 802 of 2004.
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.4.2004 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in
Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1992.
H
1044
BHAIYAMIYAN@ JARDAR KHAN & ANR. v. STATE 1045
OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ashok Mathur for the Appellants.
Vibha ·oattaa Makhija for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
This appeal arises out of the following facts:
A
B
At about 10.00 a.m. on the 30th August 1984 the
prosecutrix (PW .1) had gone to relieve herself and as she was
C
returning home, she was waylaid by the appellants who carried
her to a nearby field and thereafter raped her ~nd while leaving
threatened her with dire consequences if she revealed what had
happened to anyone. She however returned home and told her
parents about the rape. Accompanied by her parents she then
went to the police outpost at Pathriya to lodge a report but no
D
police official was found pr.esent therein. A report was then
lodged the next day at about 12.15 p.m. by PW.1 at Sironj
Police Station about 22 k.m. away from the place of incident
though the police station of village Kasbatal was Unarasital only
7 k.m. away .. The prosecutrix was accordingly sent for her
E
medical examination to the hospital at Vasoda. Information was
also sent to police Station Unarasital along with the medical
examination report Ex.P.A. and the subsequent investigation
was conducted by the police of police station Unarasital who
seized the petticoat of the prosecutrix and sent it for
F
examination.
On the completion of the investigation the accused were
charged under Sec.376 (2)(g) of the IPC for having committed
gang rape on .PW.1. The Trial Court, vide its judgment dated
G
the 6th January, 1992 observed that in the light of the fact that
the FIR had been lodged after a delay of about 60 hours and
that the statement of the prosecutrix was full of contradictions
and as the statements of her father and mother (PW2 and
PW.3) were based on the information given by her to them, no
reliance could be placed on their evidence as well. The Court
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 5 S.C.R.
A
also found that in the light of the fact that the prosecutrix had
declined to be medically examined at Sironj, where the First
Information Report had been lodged, and had insisted that she
be examined at Vasoda which was 55 k.ms. away, cast a doubt
on the prosecution story. The court further observed that as per
B the medical evidence no injury had been found on her person
though she had been raped by two persons and as such there
was no evidence to suggest that rape had been committed. On
a cumulative assessment of the prosecution evidence the Trial
Court acquitted the accused.
c
An appeal was thereafter filed by the State before the High
Court. The High Court has given a finding that the decision of
the Trial Court was perverse and called for interference. The
High Court has relied on the evidence of PW.1 and her parents
as also on some part of the evidence of Dr. Mamta SExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.