Jakir Vs. State of M.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No(s). 189 of 2003
[From the Judgement and Order dated 04.03.2002 of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2750 of 1998]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 04.03.2002 of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2750 of 1998]
Petitioner: Jakir
Respondent: State of M.P.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No(s). 189 of 2003
[From the Judgement and Order dated 04.03.2002 of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2750 of 1998]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 04.03.2002 of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2750 of 1998]
Judges: Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 06, 2009
Appearances:
Appearances
Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. C.D. Singh, Advocate for the Respondent.
Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. C.D. Singh, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Penal Code, 1860
Sections 366A and 376(2) – Conviction under – Stand that prosecutrix had not recognised him as the person who raped her, not considered by courts below. Held conviction cannot be maintained and is set aside.
Penal Code, 1860
Sections 366A and 376(2) – Conviction under – Stand that prosecutrix had not recognised him as the person who raped her, not considered by courts below. Held conviction cannot be maintained and is set aside.
Held:
Both the Trial Court and the High Court ignored the statement of the victim who in court categorically stated that she did not recognise him as she had never seen him. (Para 4)
That being so the conviction so far as the present appellant is concerned cannot be maintained. The appeal is allowed. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of the Judgment rendered by a Learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant who was appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2750/98 before the High Court. The present appellant was convicted by Court of Sessions, Tikamgarh. Five persons were tried after alleged commission of rape and abduction in terms of Section 366 A and 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Out of the five accused persons tried, two absconded and the rest three were convicted by the Trial Court. Trial Court imposed sentence of 10 years for each of the aforesaid offences. So far as the appellant is concerned, he preferred an appeal, as also two co-accused who were convicted by the Trial Court.
2. So far as the appellant is concerned his primary stand before the Trial Court and the High Court was that the prosecutrix having not identified him to be one of the persons who subjected her to rape, his conviction cannot be maintained. The High Court did not deal with this aspect but confirmed the conviction and sentences as imposed by the Trial Court. In support of the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the examination in chief itself the victim (PW-6) stated as follows:
‘I recognise the accused Raju and Pancham present in the Court. The witness after seeing the accused Jakir states that ‘I do not recognise him because I have never seen him.’
3. Learned counsel for the State referred to letter parts of the evidence where in generalised manner the role of the five accused persons was described.
4. Both the Trial Court and the High Court ignored the statement of the victim who in court categorically stated that she did not recognise him as she had never seen him.
5. That being so the conviction so far as the present appellant is concerned cannot be maintained. The appeal is allowed. The bail warrant executed to give effect to the order of bail in terms of the order of 10.2.2003 shall stand discharged.
*************
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of the Judgment rendered by a Learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant who was appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2750/98 before the High Court. The present appellant was convicted by Court of Sessions, Tikamgarh. Five persons were tried after alleged commission of rape and abduction in terms of Section 366 A and 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Out of the five accused persons tried, two absconded and the rest three were convicted by the Trial Court. Trial Court imposed sentence of 10 years for each of the aforesaid offences. So far as the appellant is concerned, he preferred an appeal, as also two co-accused who were convicted by the Trial Court.
2. So far as the appellant is concerned his primary stand before the Trial Court and the High Court was that the prosecutrix having not identified him to be one of the persons who subjected her to rape, his conviction cannot be maintained. The High Court did not deal with this aspect but confirmed the conviction and sentences as imposed by the Trial Court. In support of the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the examination in chief itself the victim (PW-6) stated as follows:
‘I recognise the accused Raju and Pancham present in the Court. The witness after seeing the accused Jakir states that ‘I do not recognise him because I have never seen him.’
3. Learned counsel for the State referred to letter parts of the evidence where in generalised manner the role of the five accused persons was described.
4. Both the Trial Court and the High Court ignored the statement of the victim who in court categorically stated that she did not recognise him as she had never seen him.
5. That being so the conviction so far as the present appellant is concerned cannot be maintained. The appeal is allowed. The bail warrant executed to give effect to the order of bail in terms of the order of 10.2.2003 shall stand discharged.
*************
