LexROOP SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 287 ROOP SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1345 of 2005) JUNE 18, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B ss. 376 and 450 - Rape - Consent - Connotation of - c Explained - Held: The evidence on record is clear that the victim was not a willing party to the sexual intercourse committed by the accused and it cannot be said that she voluntarily participated in it after fully exercising her choice in favour of assent - Nor can it be held that the accused was D falsely implicated in the offences. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 7 years RI uls 376 IPC and 3 years RI u/s 450 IPC for committing rape on her neighbor, the complainant (PW5), in the night when she and her sister-in-law (PW4) were E sleeping in the house and her husband was out to irrigate the fields. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the . convict. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD 1.1. So far as the plea of consent is concerned, unless there is voluntary participation by the woman to F a sexual act after fully exercising the choice in favour of assent, the court cannot hold that the woman gave consent to the sexual intercourse. In the instant case, it G cannot be said that the complainant had given her consent to the sexual intercourse committed by the appellant. The evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 is clear that 287 H 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R. A the complainant was sleeping within 2-3 feet away from her sister-in-law (PW-4). PW-5 has stated in her evidence that her sister-in-law (PW-4) woke up when she shouted. There is no discrepancy in the evidence of PW-5 and PW- 4 on this point. The evidence on record is clear that PW- 8 5 was not a willing party to the sexual intercourse and this Court cannot hold that PW-5 voluntarily participated in the sexual intercourse with the appellant after fully exercising her choice in favour of assent. [para 6-7] [291- C-D, G; 292-C-D] c State of U. P. v. Chhotey Lal .2011 (1) SCR 406 = (2011) 2 SCC 550; and State of H.P. v. Mango Ram 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 626 = (2000) 7 SCC 224 - referred to. 1.2. As regards the plea of false implication owing to D a land dispute between the two families, the trial court has held that there is no proof of any litigation being there between the parties. In the absence of any evidence to show that there was a dispute between the families in relation to a land on account of which PW-4 and PW-5 E would have lodged the FIR against the appellant, the Court cannot hold that the appellant had been falsely implicated in the offences punishable u/ss 450 and 376, IPC. [para 8] [292-E-G] Case Law Reference: F 2011 (1) SCR 406 referred to 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 626 referred to para 5 para 7 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal G No. 1345 of 2005. H From the Judgment & Order dated 13.12.2004 of the High Court of Judicature, Madhya Pradesh, bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No_. 452 of 2002. ROOP SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 289 R.C. Kohli for the Appellant. A Vibha Datta Makhija, Archi Agnihotri for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal by way of special B leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment dated 13.12.2004 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench. 2. The facts very briefly are that a First Information Report C (for short 'FIR') was lodged by the complainant in Police Station, Civil Lines, Morena, on 01.03.2000 at 7.50 p.m. in the evening. In her verbal statement which was registered as FIR, the complainant stated that on the previous night while she was sleeping in her house in village Tighrapura in a room at about D 2 a.m., the appellant, who was her neighbour, entered into her house an~ forcibly committed intercourse with her when her sister-in-law Guddi Bai sleeping in a nearby cot woke up after listening to weeping of the complainant and then the appellant ran away. The complainant further stated that her husband Rajesh had been to the well to give water to the field and when E he came in the morning she told him about the incident and he went to Khadiahar to call her father-in-law Ram Bhajan but he did not meet him and then the complainant has come with her husband to lodge the FIR. Pursuant to the FIR, an x-ray was conducted on the complainant. The complainant was also F medically examined. Inves
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.