LexMANOJ GIRI versus STATE OF CHHATISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 5 S.C.R. 529
MANOJ GIRi
V.
STATE OF CHHATISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No.470 of 2012)
MAY 8, 2013
[T.S. THAKUR AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
A
B
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.396 & 376(2)(g) - Dacoity with
murder and gang rape - Five accused -
Conviction of
accused-appellant - Challenged - Held: No merit in the
C
contention that conviction of appellant was unjustified in view
of acquittal of the other four accused - It cannot be said that
conviction for dacoity with murder can be maintained only
when five or more persons are convicted - Evidence against
the four co-accused was not sufficient to convict them - If D
properly convicted each one of them were liable to be
punished with death uls.396 /PC- Since that did not happen,
conviction of five persons - or even one - can stand - PW1
was a married woman and was overpowered by several men
before she was raped - Ample evidence of rape in view of the
E
forensic report regarding the clothes of PW1 and those of the
appellant - Entire evidence alongwith proper and clear
identification at identification parade and in the court by PW1
leaves no manner of doubt that the conviction of appellant was
well founded.
F
The prosecution case was that at night, while PW1,
her husband (PW2) and father-in-law ('D') were passing
by a road, the five accused persons stopped them and
assaulted PW2 and 'D' and thereafter raped PW1 one by
one. 'D' subsequently died. The accused persons were
G
charged for committing the offences of gang rape,
dacoity and murder. The trial court convicted the
accused-appellant under Sections 395, 396, 397, 398 and
376 (2)(g) IPC and sentenced him to undergo
529
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 5 S.C.R.
A imprisonment for life and RI for different periods. The
other accused were however acquitted by the trial court
The High Court maintained the conviction of the appellant
under Sections 396 and 376 (2)(g) IPC and sentenced him
to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous
B imprisonment for ten years, respectively, but set aside his
conviction under Section 395 IPC.
In the instant appeal, the appellant raised the
following contentions: 1) that his conviction was
C unjustified in view of acquittal of the other accused; 2)
that since the other four accused who were similarly
charged were acquitted of the offence of dacoity, it was
not legal and proper to convict the appellant of the said
charge; 3) that the story of PW1 was not credible; and 4)
that there were no injuries on PW1 to infer rape.
D
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There is no merit in the contention that
conviction of the appellant is unjustified in view of
E acquittal of the other accused. The trial court did not find
sufficient evidence against the other accused to infer
their guilt. The trial court found sufficient anomaly in the
identification and contradictions in the version of the
witnesses. This Court may have been persuaded to take
a different view of the evidence but the State did not
F consider it even worthwhile to file an appeal against the
order of the trial court for reasons best known to it. [Para
12] [536-D-F]
2. It cannot be said that a conviction for dacoity with
G murder can be maintained only when five or more
persons are convicted. PW1's father-in-law was killed in
the assault by the five accused. The evidence against the
other four was not sufficient to convict them. There is no
doubt, the murder was committed during the conjoint
H commission of dacoity. If properly convicted each one of
MANOJ GIRi v. STATE OF CHHATISGARH
531
them were liable to be punished with death vide Section
A
396 IPC. Since that has not happened the conviction of
five persons - or even one - can stand. Therefore the
conviction of appellant is maintained for the incident in
which there was gang rape of PW1, dacoity and a wanton
murder of the hapless father-in-law of PW1. [Paras 14, 15
B
and 16] [537-C; 538-B-D]
Raj Kumar Alias Raju v. State of Uttranchal (2008) 11
sec 709: 2008 (5) SCR 1216 - relied on.
3.1. PW1 disclosed the incident of gang rape to her C
husband PW2 when he re-gained consciousness on the
incident date itself and then in the morning she disclosed
it to the Investigating Officer when her statement was
recorded. No inference of any lack of credibility can be
drawn from this. The resistance of a woman, who has
D
been raped, to announce it to anyone is well known and
there is nothing unnatural foExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.