LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus KESHAR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 496
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
KESHAR SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No.2244 Of 2009)
JULY 03, 2015
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860-s. 376 - Rape of minor girl of unsound
C mind- Two eye-witnesses to the incident-Acquittal by the
courts below - On appeal, held: The prosecution case suffers
from inherent inconsistencies and flaws -
The three
witnesses have three versions and the testimonies of the
D two eye-witnesses are irreconcilable - Medical evidence also
does not support prosecution case - The evidence of the
doctor as well is inconsistent - Order of acquittal upheld.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1. There are inherent inconsistencies in
the case of the prosecution. The testimonies of two
alleged eye-witnesses, PW2 & PW3, are irreconcilable.
The statement of PW2 is incredible. The three witnesses
viz. PW2, PW3 and PW4 have three different versions.
F Moreover, both PW2 and PW3 have said that they saw
accused inflicting knife blows at the prosecutrix on her
thigh and blood oozed out on that account. This is
completely unsupported by the medical evidence; no
such injury by knife was found on the thigh of the
G prosecutrix. [Para 8) [501-C, G]
H
2. The medical evidence also seems to be not
wholly supportive to the case of the prosecution. The
evidence of the doctor shows that, probably, the sexual
496
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. KESHAR SINGH
497
intercourse was done more than 24 hours back. In her A
cross-examination she said that rupture of hymen was
at the most 2-3 days prior to the medical examination. If
this be so, the entire story of the prosecution would go.
There is another inconsistency to be found from the
deposition of the doctor. She said in her statement that B
the girl she had examined was a healthy and 'normal'
one. However, there is no dispute that the prosecutrix
was far from normal as she was suffering from some
mental disorder. It would be highly unlikely and C
assumptuous to say that even after conducting the whole
examination of the prosecutrix, the doctor may not have
come to know of the mental disorder of the prosecutrix.
[Para 9) [501-C,G]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 2244 of 2009
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2006 in
Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 1992 of the High Court, of E
Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
Naveen Sharma, Mishra Saurabh, Vibha Datta
Makhija for the Appellant.
lrshad Ahmad, Anurag Rawat, Sudhir Kumar for the F
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. - 1. In the present G
case, there is concurrent decision of acquittal of the accused
by the Sessions Court as well as· the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh. The offence alleged to have been committed in
this case is rape, punishable under Section 376 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC", for short).
H
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 6 S.C.R.
A
2. The story of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix
is a minor of unsound mind. On 09-11-1990 at around 8:30
a.m. when prosecutrix and her younger sister Nirmala (PW3)
were going to their field with food for their father, the accused
came and caught hold of the prosecutrix. He took her to
B some distance near a pond and committed rape on her.
Prosecutrix's private parts had bled and the petticoat was
blood-stained. On seeing this, PW3 Nirmala rushed to her
father Gopal (PW4) and informed him of the incident. Then
PW4 came to the prosecutrix who told him with the help of
C sign language (since she cannot speak properly) that the
accused committed rape on her. He noticed that there were
blood stains on her petticoat near the private parts.
Thereafter, PW4 took the prosecutrix to police station and
D lodged an FIR at 11 :30 a.m. on the same day. Medical
examination of the prosecutrix was conducted which revealed
that the hymen was ruptured and the examining doctor Dr.
(Mrs.) F.A. Qureshi opined that the prosecutrix was subjected
to sexual intercourse. During investigation the accused was
E arrested on 21-11-1990 and was medically examined. He
was found to be capable of performing sexual intercourse.
The police filed charge-sheet against the accused with the
charge of rape under Section 376 of IPC.
F
3. The prosecution produced PW1 Dr. Smt. F.A.
Qureshi, PW2 Manohar Singh (uncle of the prosecutrix),
PW3 Nirmala (younger sister of the prosecutrix), PW4 Gopal
(fatheExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.