LexTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAJARAM @ RAJA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. RAJARAM @ RAJA (Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 2016) OCTOBER 24, 2018 [N. V. RAMANA AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] Appeal: Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference – Prosecution case was that the respondent committed rape on the victim-deceased due to which she was under depression and committed suicide by consuming poison – Conviction of respondent under ss.376(1) and 306 IPC – High Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent and set aside his conviction – Appeal by State challenging acquittal relying on the evidence of 12 year old sister of the deceased and her father – Held: PW-4, sister of the deceased who is 12 years of age, categorically stated in her cross-examination that she was threatened by the police and due to that, she had made a statement in support of the prosecution case – The uncorroborated evidence of 12 year old girl is likely to have been tutored or under influence while giving her testimony and, therefore, cannot be relied upon – The evidence of PW-3-father of deceased is also not credible – PW-3 who lodged Merg intimation on the day of incident had stated therein that he had scolded her daughter i.e. the deceased and resultantly she took poisonous substance – There was no mention in the Merg Intimation that the deceased told her father about the commission of rape by respondent and that as a result deceased committed suicide due to depression or self-torment – No case made out for interference with the order of High Court – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376(1) and 306. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. PW-4, sister of the deceased who is stated to be 12 years of age, categorically stated in her cross-examination that on the next day of incident, when the police came, she did not tell anything about the incident to the police. Subsequently, after a week, police came again and at the instance of police, she [2018] 14 S.C.R. 294 294 A B C D E F G H 295 made a statement. She also admitted that she was threatened by the police and due to that, she has made a statement in support of the prosecution case. [Para 10][297-E] 2. Another evidence relied upon by the appellant was that PW-3, father of the deceased who lodged Merg intimation on the same day of incident in which inter alia he stated that he scolded her daughter i.e. the deceased and resultantly she took poisonous substance. There is no mention in the Merg Intimation that the deceased told PW-3 about commission of rape by respondent and as a result deceased committed suicide due to depression or self- torment, after being raped by respondent. In view of this the evidence of PW-3 is not reliable at all. In the instant case, except the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, there was no other material or medical evidence to support or substantiate the case of prosecution. In a case of acquittal by the High Court, the State has to make out a strong case to interfere with the impugned order. Until and unless, there is some perversity or non- consideration of the material facts, it is not proper to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the High Court. [Paras 11, 12][297-G-H; 298-A-B] Bhagwan Singh and Others v. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 21 : [2003] 1 SCR 506 ; State of Kerala & Anr. v. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450 : [2011] 6 SCR 864 ; State of U.P. v. Punni & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 153 : [2008] 1 SCR 85 ; State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh (1995) 2 SCC 486 : [1995] 1 SCR 496 – relied on. Case Law Reference [2003] 1 SCR 506 relied on Para 10 [2011] 6 SCR 864 relied on Para 12 [2008] 1 SCR 85 relied on Para 13 [1995] 1 SCR 496 relied on Para 14 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2009 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2005. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. RAJARAM @ RAJA A B C D E F G H 296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, B. N. Dubey, Mukesh, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Nidhi, Adv. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the Appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh by special leave against the impugned order dated 12.01.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2005, wherein, High Court allowed the appeal preferred by respondent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.