LexSWAROOP SINGH versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 765 SWAROOP SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 2010) ·APRIL 10, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: s~376(1) - Rape - Statement of prosecutrix that accused committed forcible sexual intercourse against her wish at knife point - Held: Except simply denying the offence alleged in the statement uls 313 Cr.P.C., accused did not let in any evidence A B c to contradict the version of the prosecutrix -Trial court on a D detailed consideration of the evidence concluded that the case of prosecutrix was cogent and convincing and was also supported by evidence of other witnesses and the recoveries made from the place of occurrence - Judgments of Courts below call for no interference. E State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh 1996 (1) SCR 532 = 1996(2) sec 384 - relied on Case Law Reference: 1996 (1) SCR 532 relied on para 14 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 2010. F From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2008 of the G High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 1994. 765 H 766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A Ranvir Singh Kundu, Jetendra Singh, S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellant. Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. B The following order of the Court was delivered by ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 16.7.2008 in C Criminal Appeal No.301/1994. 2. According to the prosecution on 28.9.19992 at 12.30 p.m., the prosecutrix P.W.2 was proceeding to the field for' cutting grass. On the way, the appellant who was roasting Maize/Bhutta in the field of Pyarelal, blocked P.W.2 and asked D her to go alongwith him into the field of sugarcane. When P.W.2 refused, the appellant caught hold of her by hand and forcibly took her _to the sugarcane field, throw her down, gagged her mouth with the saree of P.W.2 and forcibly had intercourse with her by threatening her life at knife point. According to her by E virtue of the said act of the appellant, white liquid started oozing out from her private parts, that she went to the boundary wall (Mound) where a well is situated and where Ram Singh Dada (P.W.4) was cutting grass. P.W.2 informed Ram Singh Dada as to what happened, who in turn passed on the information to F her Kakaji Hari Prasad. Thereafter, her Kakaji Hari Prasad took P.W. 2 to home, where she narrated the whole incident. She stated to have informed her sister Chain Bai as well as her Kaki and Shanta Bai. She thereafter reported the matter to the Vilkis Ganj Police Station and after registering the report reached G back home. She identified the report as Exhibit P2. H 3. Subsequent to the registration of the case, the Police inspected the spot, seized the broken bangles and prepared a rough sketch. She was examined by the doctor who seized her peticoat and X-ray was also taken. The appellant was SWAROOP SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. 767 proceeded against in Criminal Case No.84/1992 for the A offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part II, IPC. The appellant having denied comission of the offence, witnesses were examined and in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded total ignorance and that he was falsely implicated. B 4. On the side of the prosecution P.W. 1 to 10 were examined. P.W.1 Dr. Manju Saxena, who examined the prosecutrix in her evidence stated that on internal examination of P.W.2, hymen was found to be torn in irregular manner and C that two finger could easily be inserted in the vagina. She also stated that there was no flow of fresh blood. Two slides of vagina slabs prepared and sealed and were handed over to the police for forwarding the same for chemical examination alongwith the Peticoat of the prosecutrix on which spots were present. D 5. In the course of cross examination, P.W.2 deposed that when the appellant threw her on the ground she did not sustain any injury; that she was not assaulted by way of fist blow, though the appellant threatened her not to raise any alarm by showing E a knife. She further deposed that when white fluid was oozing out from her private parts, blood was also found and that she washed the stains with water when she reached the well from the place of occurrence and before she met Ram Singh. She also deposed that she had swelling. in her private parts and was F su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.