LexDINESH JAISWAL versus STATE OF M. P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 1 S.C.R. 1063 DINESH JAISWAL v. STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 956 of 2005) JANUARY 12, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL,· JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B ss. 376, 323 and 506 - Rape - Conviction on the basis · c of evidence of prosecutrix - HELD: The test always is whether the given story prima facie inspires confidence - In the instant case, the story given by prosecutrix that the accused after giving tangi blows on her head and hand raped her and when the accused was leaving she snatched tangi from him and 0 caused injuries to him does not inspire confidence - Her son and another relative who had reached the spot did not support her and were declared hostile - Even her husband who had accompanied her to the police station was not examined in court - Doctor was unable to confirm the factum of rape - E Prosecution story that the accused, a youngman of 31 years was overpowered by the prosecutrix, a much older woman of 42 years, is rather difficult to believe - Three injuries found on hands of prosecutnx are simple in nature whereas out of 6 injuries found' on hand and head of accused, one is a grievous injury - The case of the accused that he had gone F to the house of the complainants to recover his cow and in a quarrel both received injuries was not verified by investigating officer - In the circumstances, some corroboration for the statement of the prosecutrix was required - In this view of the matter, judgments of courts below convicting and sentencing G the accused are set aside and he is acquitted - Evidence - Testimony of prosecutrix - Reliability of. 1063 H 1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 1 S.C.R. A Motila/ vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2008 (10) SCR 983 B = (2008) 11 sec 20, referred to. Case Law Reference: 2008 (10 ) SCR 983 referred to para 3 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 956 of 2005. From the Judgment & Order dated 24.11.2003 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal C No. 1365 of 1998. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant. C.D. Singh, Sunny Choudhary and Shashank S. Parihar 0 for the Respondent. E The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER The facts leading to the appeal are as under : At about 4.00 P.M. on 8th July, 1987 the prosecutrix (PW- 1) was alone in her house situated in Village Magrohar, Police Station Rampur Naiken. The appellant, who was known to her, entered the house and after having inflicted three tangi blows F on her head and hands, raped her. The prosecutrix also, in defence, snatched the tangi from the appellant and caused several injuries on his head while he was leaving the room. As a result of the injuries suffered, both became unconscious. In the meanwhile, Sam pat the husband of the prosecutrix, arrived G at the scene and she told him about what had happened. She also called Babula! (PW-2) her son and Shivbalak (PW-3) a distant relative, and they along with several other persons reached the spot. The prosecutrix thereafter accompanied by her husband Sampat, Babulal and the others afore referred H lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit P-1) at Police DINESH JAISWAL v. STATE OF M.P. 1065 Chowki Khaddi on the same day at about 7.30 p.m. The ·A prosecutrix was also sent for a medical examination which was carried out the next day by Dr. Kalpana Ravi (PW-5), who found three injuries on her and further recorded that as she was a married woman of 42 years, it had not been possible to give a categoric opinion about any recent sexual encounter. The B appellant was also examined by Dr. S.S. Khare (PW-6) and his report Ex. P-6/A revealed six injuries, several of them on the head including Injury No. 6, which was grievous as his teeth had been knocked out. On the completion of the investigation a charge for offences punishable under Sections 376, 323 and c 506 of the Indian Penal Code was framed. The appellant denied the charge and was brought to trial. During the course of the trial, PWs 2 and 3, Babula! and Shivbalak the son and relative of the prosecutrix who had reached the place of incident, soon after the alleged rape, were declared hostile and they gave a D version contrary to what had been deposed to by the prosecutrix. The trial court also found, endorsing the view of Dr. Kalpana Ravi (PW-5), that as the prosecutrix was a married woman, it was impossible to give a categoric opinion about any recent sex
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.