LexRAVINDRA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 860
RAVINDRA
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2013)
FEBRUARY 26, 2015.
[M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860- s. 376(1) and Proviso to s.376(2)
- Rape - Of a woman above 16 years of age - Prosecution
for- Conviction and sentence of 10 years by courts below
-
On appeal, held: In view of the fact of the case,
D commission of rape seems to be improbable - In view
thereof and also in view of the facts that incident took place
20 years ago and the parties had entered into compromise,
it is a fit case to fall under Proviso to s.376(2) - Hence,
conviction is upheld, but sentence is reduced to the period
E already undergone.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There is no sign of injury on the body of
the victim and no definite opinion of rape is given by
F the PW-3, the doctor who medically examined the
prosecutrix, though there had been grappling for 15-20
minutes between the victim and the accused. It is highly
improbable that their clothes would not tear and there
would not be any injury on the body of the victim. Going
G by the medical examination report and the statement
of P.W.3, it is improbable that rape was committed. [para
12) [867-F-G, H, 868-A,C]
H
860
RAVINDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
861
Dastagir Sab & Anr. v. State of Kamataka 2004 (1) A
SCR 952 = (2004) 3 SCC 106 - referred to.
2. The Chemical Examiner report found that the
sample of semen was not sufficient to link the same to
the accused, notwithstanding that absence of B
spermatozoa on the vaginal smear could not be allowed
to tell against the version of the prosecutrix. [para 14)
[868-G]
Hem Raj v. State of Haryana 2014 (1) SCR 9 = (2014) c
2 SCC 395; Narayanamma v. State of Kamataka & Ors.
1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 799 = (1994) 5 SCC 728 - relied on.
3. The Court should not rely solely on the testimony
· of the prosecutrix. The statement in the present case D
requires corroboration as it lias minor contradictions
and is not corroborated by other prosecution
witnesses. The two maternal uncles (PW-4 and PW-5)
of the prosecutrix did not support her and were
declared hostile. [para 15) [869-D]
E
Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(2006) 10 sec 92 - relied on.
Narendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (6) SCR
148 = (2012) 7 SCC 171 - referred to.
F
4. The case of the appellant is a fit case for invoking
the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) of IPC for awarding
lesser sentence, as the incident is 20 years old and the
fact that the parties are married and have entered into G
a compromise, are the adequate and special reasons.
Therefore, although the conviction of the appellant is
. upheld, the sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone by the appellant. [para 18) [870-B-D]
H
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 2 S.C.R.
A
Baldev Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab 2011 (15) SCR
927 = (2011) 13 sec 705 - relied on.
Sheikh Zakir vs. State of Bihar, 1983 (2) SCR 312 =
AIR 1983 SC 911; and State of U.P. v. Chhoteylal, 2011
B (1) SCR 406 =AIR 2011 SC 697 - referred to.
c
D
E
F
G
H
Case Law Reference
1983 (2) SCR 312
referred to
para 6
2011 (1) SCR 406
referred to
para 6
2004 (1) SCR 952
referred to
para 12
2014 (1) SCR 9
relied on
para 13
1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 799 relied on
para 14
2012 (6) SCR 148
referred to
para 15
(2006) 10 sec 92
relied on
para 15
2011 (15) SCR 927
relied on
para 17
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 1410 of 2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2013 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, bench at Indore in Criminal
Appeal No. 1275 of 1997
Sushil Kumar Jain, Khushbu Jain (for Pratibha Jain) for
the Appellant.
Ayesha Chawdhry, Musharraf Chawdhry, C. D. Singh
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAVINDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
863
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. This appeal by A
special leave arises from the judgment and order dated
12.3.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Bench at Indore, in Criminal Appeal No.1275 of 1997
whereby the High Court has upheld the sentence awarded
to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, B
Khargone, in S.T. No. 288/94. The Trial Court convicted the
appellant under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code
("IPC", for short) and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous
. imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, and iExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.