# Mainpal (In Jail) v. State

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 150
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-31
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 1988
- **Bench:** Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mainpal-in-jail-v-state-47554
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
appeal
against
conviction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 376 - rape - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - absence
of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a
factor that leads the court to absolve the
accused - mere delay in lodging the FIR
does not adversely affect the prosecution
case unless it is proved that delay in
9 All. Mainpal Vs. State
151
lodging FIR was due to deliberation and
consultation making it possible to frame
innocent persons - Minor contradictions or
insignificant
discrepancies
in
the
statement of a prosecutrix should not be a
ground for throwing out an otherwise
reliable prosecution case - Evidence of the
victim of sexual assault is enough for
conviction and it does not require any
corroboration unless there are compelling
reasons for seeking corroboration.(Para -
8,10,12)

At the time of incident - Victim (PW-1) was cutting
grass in the field - about 2:00 - 2:30 pm - accused
/appellant came from inside sugar-cane field -
forcefully dragged victim against her will into the
sugar-cane field - committed rape with her - On
her noise, her Jethani (PW-2) came there at that
time accused was committing rape - appellant ran
away - other co - villager also saw him running
away - complaint filed by husband of victim - trial
court held victim guilty for offence under Section
376 IPC - hence appeal.

HELD:-Victim
has
fully
corroborated
the
allegations made in the FIR and another eye
witness, P.W.-2 has also supported her. Oral
statement of the two witnesses are consistent
and there is no discrepancy or contradiction,
and hence, no reason to disbelieve them. No
perversity or illegality in the findings of the trial
court. Prosecution case stands proved and
finding of conviction recorded by the trial court
is just and proper.(Para -13, 14)

Criminal Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the face and due to which her face and
nose were disfigured, injured was admitted
to the hospital and she remained in hospital
for 17-18 days. The discharge slip of
Medical College, Kanpur Nagar is also on
record, according to which injured Smt.
Sarita was admitted in the hospital on
05.03.2011
and
was
discharged
on
22.03.2011.The injury report also shows
that injury was extended from forehead of
right side of nose to right side of upper lip,
her entire face was damaged.

16. The learned trial court has fully
discussed the entire evidence and has
properly appreciated it and has rightly held
the accused guilty for offence under
Section 308 IPC. There is no illegality or
perversity in the findings recorded by the
learned trial court and the finding of
conviction is upheld.

17. The learned Amicus Curaie Mr.
Shwetashwa Agarwal submitted that it is a
matter of quarrel between husband and
wife and the incident is 10 years old,
appellant-accused
is
in
jail
since
19.07.2018 he also remained in jail at the
time of his arrest for more than two months
and has completed more than three years
and three months imprisonment. Learned
counsel prayed that the sentence of
undergone may be imposed.

18. The learned trial court has
sentenced the accused for four years
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of
fine three months simple imprisonment.

19. Considering the nature of the
offence, nature of the injuries and all other
attending facts and circumstances of the
case, it appears to be just to sentence the
accused with three years and six months
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of
fine three months simple imprisonment. If
the fine is deposited the victim- Smt. Sarita
will get half of the fine amount.

18. The appeal is partly allowed in the
aforesaid terms.

19. Copy of this judgment along with
lower court record be transmitted to the
learned trial court immediately. The copy
of the judgment be also served on accused
through Superintendent of Jail, concerned
so that he may be able to deposit the fine, if
he so desires.
----------
(2021)09ILR A150
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 1988

Mainpal ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anil Malik, Sri Kulveer Singh, Sri
Deepesh Kumar Ojha

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
appeal
against
conviction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 376 - rape - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - absence
of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a
factor that leads the court to absolve the
accused - mere delay in lodging the FIR
does not adversely affect the prosecution
case unless it is proved that delay in
9 All. Mainpal Vs. State
151
lodging FIR was due to deliberation and
consultation making it possible to frame
innocent persons - Minor contradictions or
insignificant
discrepancies
in
the
statement of a prosecutrix should not be a
ground for throwing out an otherwise
reliable prosecution case - Evidence of the
victim of sexual assault is enough for
conviction and it does not require any
corroboration unless there are compelling
reasons for seeking corroboration.(Para -
8,10,12)

At the time of incident - Victim (PW-1) was cutting
grass in the field - about 2:00 - 2:30 pm - accused
/appellant came from inside sugar-cane field -
forcefully dragged victim against her will into the
sugar-cane field - committed rape with her - On
her noise, her Jethani (PW-2) came there at that
time accused was committing rape - appellant ran
away - other co - villager also saw him running
away - complaint filed by husband of victim - trial
court held victim guilty for offence under Section
376 IPC - hence appeal.

HELD:-Victim
has
fully
corroborated
the
allegations made in the FIR and another eye
witness, P.W.-2 has also supported her. Oral
statement of the two witnesses are consistent
and there is no discrepancy or contradiction,
and hence, no reason to disbelieve them. No
perversity or illegality in the findings of the trial
court. Prosecution case stands proved and
finding of conviction recorded by the trial court
is just and proper.(Para -13, 14)

Criminal Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of U.P. Vs Pappu, (2005) 3 SCC 594

2. St. of Pun. Vs Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384

3. St. of Pun. Vs Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC
384

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kulveer singh, learned
counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for
the state and perused the material on
record.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been
filed against the judgment and order dated
29.2.1988 passed by Vth Additional
Session Judge, Saharanpur in Sessions
Trial No. 167 of 1987 arising out of Case
Crime No. 13 of 1986, Police Station -
Manglore, District - Saharanpur convicting
the appellant under section 376 IPC for five
years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine
three months Simple imprisonment.

3. In brief, the prosecution case is that
complainant - Chandu gave a written
information at Police Station - Mangalore
that on 14.1.1986 his wife was cutting grass
in field of Satyawan. His Bhabhi was also
cutting grass at some distance. At about
2:30 p.m. his co-villager Mainpal came
from inside the sugar-cane field and
forcefully dragged his wife into the sugarcane field intimidating her and pressing her
mouth and committed rape with her. On
getting opportunity, his wife make a noise,
then his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) - Rajo went
inside the sugar-cane field and saw
Mainpal committing rape with the wife of
the complainant. Seeing this incident, Rajo
made a noise and on her noise, other covillager- Rajpal came there, then Mainpal
holding his trouser in his hand ran away
from there, intimidating and saying that if
any action is taken, he will kill all of them.
When complainant came to the house, his
wife told the whole incident but due to fear,
he could not go to the Police Station. On
getting opportunity, he went to the Police
Station for lodging the FIR. On the
aforesaid information, Case Crime No. 13
of 1986 under Section 376 IPC was
registered against accused - Mainpal on
15.1.1986. Investigating officer recorded
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the statement of complainant, victim and
other witnesses. Victim was also medically
examined. Investigating officer also took in
possession one piece of Salwar which the
victim was wearing at the time of
occurrence and prepared its memo. After
completion of the investigation, charge
sheet was submitted.

4. Learned trial court framed charge
against the accused - Mainpal under
Section 376 IPC, accused denied it and
claimed for trial. Prosecution produced four
witnesses. Statement of accused was
recorded
under
Section
313
Cr.P.C.
Accused denied the prosecution version
and has further stated that he has been
falsely implicated due to enmity. Learned
trial court after hearing the arguments by
the impugned judgement has held him
guilty for offence under Section 376 IPC
and sentenced him to five year rigorous
imprisonment and fine of rupees 1000/-.

5. Victim was medically examined
and
his
medico
legal
report
and
supplementary report are on record but the
same have not been got proved by the
prosecution. According to the medico legal
report, height of the victim was 150 cm,
weight
100
pounds.
In
External
examination, breasts were well developed,
axillary
hair
present.
In
internal
examination, vagina admits two fingers
easily, hymen torn, old & healed, uterus
normal size. Victim was referred for X-ray
to assess her age and vaginal smear
examination
for
the
presence
of
spermatozoa.

6. According to the supplementary
report on basis of radiologist report her age
was above 18 years. No opinion about rape
was possible as she was used to sexual
intercourse.

7. In all four witnesses have been
examined by the prosecution out of which
PW-1 is victim herself. She has fully
corroborated the FIR allegations and has
stated that at the time of occurrence she
was cutting grass in the field. At about 2:00
- 2:30 pm, accused - Mainpal came from
inside the sugar-cane field and forcefully
dragged her against her will into the sugarcane field and committed rape with her. On
her noise, her Jethani - Rajo came there at
that time accused was committing rape and
thereafter he ran away holding his trouser
in his hand, Rajpal also saw him running
away. Rajo the eyewitness has also been
examined as PW-2 and she has also
corroborated the statement of PW-1 - the
victim. Both these witnesses have been
cross examined at length by the defence but
there
is
no
major
discrepancy
or
contradiction in their statements which
makes their statements unreliable or
untrustworthy.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant
contended that according to the prosecution
case, accused forcefully dragged the victim
into the sugar-cane field and put her down
on the ground and committed rape in the
field itself. Victim in her statement has also
admitted that when she was forcefully
dragged into the sugar-cane field then
sugar-cane leaves rubbed against her body
but no visible mark of injury has been
found on the body of the victim in medical
examination which is improbable. In the
circumstances of the case the marks of
abrasion / contusion should have been
found on the body of the victim and the
medical report does not support the ocular
version and the testimony of the witness is
not trustworthy.

This point was raised before the
trial court and the trial court in paragraph 2
9 All. Mainpal Vs. State
153
of page 10 has dealt with it and has
observed
that
victim
was
medically
examined after two days of the incident. At
paragraph 6 of page 4, she has stated that
when the accused caught her then she put
some resistance and also requested the
accused not to commit such act with her. In
these
circumstances,
there
was
little
possibility of injuries on the body of the
victim. The aforesaid observation of
learned trial court appears to be reasonable
and proper. The absence of visible injuries,
in the circumstances of the case does not
make the prosecution version doubtful or
unreliable.

In State of U.P. Vs. Pappu,
(2005) 3 SCC 594, it has been held that
absence of injury on the prosecutrix may
not be a factor that leads the court to
absolve the accused.

9. Learned counsel further contended
that the alleged incident is of 14.1.1986 at
2:30 p.m. but first information report has
been lodged on 15.1.1986 at 7:35 p.m. after
more
than
29
hours,
so
there
is
considerable delay in lodging the FIR. The
explanation of delay as given in the FIR is
not sufficient. In the oral testimony, it is
that when complainant came in the evening
the whole incident was narrated by the
victim to him but no FIR was lodged on
that day. On the next day, complainant
went to his duty and thereafter FIR has
been lodged in the evening so there is no
sufficient explanation of the delay. This
argument has also got no force. In the FIR
itself, it is mentioned that complainant
could not come to the police station due to
fear and on getting opportunity he has
come to lodge the FIR. It has also come in
the evidence that complainant and victim
belong to Schedule Caste while accused is
Gurjar. He has threatened the complainant
and victim of evil consequences if they
lodge any report or take any action. Apart
from this in case of such a nature, due to
fear of social stigma, the people avoid to
take any action promptly.

In the case of State of Punjab Vs.
Gurmit Singh, 1996 (2) SCC 384, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"The Courts cannot overlook the
fact that in sexual offences and, in
particular, the offence of rape and that too
on a young illiterate girl, the delay in
lodging the FIR can occur due to various
reasons. One of the reasons is the
reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family
members to go to the police station and to
make a complaint about the incident, which
concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix
and the honour of the entire family. In such
cases, after giving very cool thought and
considering all pros and cons arising out of
an unfortunate incident, a complaint of
sexual offence is generally lodged either by
victim or by any member of her family.
Indeed, this has been the consistent view of
this Court as has been held in."

10. It is also well settled law that
mere delay in lodging the FIR does not
adversely affect the prosecution case unless
it is proved that delay in lodging FIR was
due to deliberation and consultation making
it possible to frame innocent persons. In
this case, there is no evidence on record to
show that there was any deliberation or
consultation and there is no reason for false
implication.

11. Lastly, learned counsel for the
appellant contended that the prosecution
story is highly improbable because in the
FIR it has been alleged that at the time of
incident the victim along with her sisterin-law (Jethani) was cutting grass in the
field of Satyawan when the accused
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
forcefully dragged her into the sugar-cane
field. In this circumstance, it was natural
and probable that sister-in-law - Rajo
should have noticed it at the very moment
and should have made a hue and cry but
nothing like this sort has happened and
accused was successful in dragging the
victim
into
sugar-cane
field
and
committing rape with her. It appears from
the circumstances that victim was a
consenting party but when the incident
was noticed by her sister-in-law (Jethani),
the story as alleged in the FIR was
cooked up. This argument has also no
force because it has come in the evidence
that sister-in-law of the victim was
cutting grass 50 to 60 paces away from
the victim. The victim - P.W.-1 in her
examination-in-chief has stated that her
Jethani was cutting grass in Arhar field
50 to 60 paces away from her while she
was cutting grass in the sugar-cane field.
In site plan, Exhibit (Ka-2) also the place
where victim was cutting grass has been
shown with letter (A) while the place
where sister-in-law of the victim was
cutting grass has been shown with letter
(B) and the distance between the two is
64 paces. So it is clear from the evidence
on record that at the time of incident two
ladies were cutting
grass at some
distance, so there is nothing improbable
in the prosecution story. Victim - P.W.-1
in her statement has also stated that she
put some resistance and also requested to
the accused for not committing such act
with her so it cannot be said that she was
a consenting party.

12. In State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit
Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, it has been
held by the Apex Court that "in cases
involving
sexual
harassment,
molestation, etc. the court is duty bound
to deal with such cases with utmost
sensitivity.
Minor
contradictions
or
insignificant
discrepancies
in
the
statement of a prosecutrix should not be
a ground for throwing out an otherwise
reliable prosecution case. Evidence of
the victim of sexual assault is enough for
conviction and it does not require any
corroboration
unless
there
are
compelling
reasons
for
seeking
corroboration. The court may look for
some assurances of her statement to
satisfy
judicial
conscience.
The
statement of the prosecutrix is more
reliable than that of an injured witness
as she is not an accomplice."

13. In this case the victim has fully
corroborated the allegations made in the
FIR and another eye witness, P.W.-2 has
also supported her. The oral statement of
the two witnesses are consistent and
there is no discrepancy or contradiction,
and hence, no reason to disbelieve them.

14. Learned trial court has fully
discussed and properly appreciated the
entire evidence. There is no perversity or
illegality in the findings of the learned
trial court. From the evidence on record,
the prosecution case stands proved and
finding of conviction recorded by the
trial court is just and proper. The
sentence awarded by the trial court also
need no interference.

15. The criminal appeal has no force
and liable to be dismissed.

16. The criminal appeal is hereby
dismissed.

17. Lower court record along with
copy of the judgment be transmitted to the
trial court immediately.
----------
9 All. Shiv Baran Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
155
(2021)09ILR A155
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 1982
connected with
Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 1982
with
Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 1982

Shiv Baran Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Kr. M. Rakesh, Arun Sinha, Jyotiendra
Misra, K.S. Prakash, Kapil Misra, O.P.
Srivastava, R N S Chauhan, Ram Naresh
Singh Chauhan, U.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, Amarjeet Singh Rakhra,
Anil Kumar Tripathi, Manish Bajpai, N.
Mohan, Nagendra Mohan, Rajit Krishan,
Sharad Dixit, Shishir Pradhan

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Section
374(2)-
challenge to-conviction-PW-1 and PW-2
supported the prosecution case as they
are the eyewitnesses to the incidentwhen accused fired, the deceased fell
down on the earth, thereafter, other
accused assaulted the deceased with
Kanta,
ballam
and
lathis-deceased
received
26
ante-mortem
injuriestestimony of injured witness PW-3 is
supported from medical evidence as well
as statement of Investigating OfficerWhile
injuries
of
the
accused
are
superficial one as per statement of DW-1
and DW-2-the injuries are self suffered
or self-manufactured-their injuries report
is suspected-if plea of defense that
accused/appellants have been attacked
by the miscreants or by the complainant's
party, is taken to be true, then, certainly
some of the accused would have
received grievous injuries but DW-1 and
DW-2 who examined the accused have
not found any grievous injuries-trial
court
rightly
observed
that
defence
version is only an afterthought and
rightly convicted the accused/appellantsbail are cancelled directed to surrender
and
serve
out
remaining
period
of
sentence. (Para 1 to 117)

The appeals are dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Arjun Pradhan & anr. Vs St. of Orissa (1979)
AIR SC 1259

2. Gotti Pulla Venkete Siva Vs St. of A.P. & anr.
(1970) AIR 1079

3. Munshi Ram & ors. Vs Delhi Administration
(1968) AIR 702

4. James Martin Vs St. of Ker.(2004) 2 SCC 203

5. Lakshmi Singh & ors. Vs St. of Bih.(1976) AIR
SC 2263

6. Jagdish Vs St. of Raj.(1979) AIR 1010

7. Onkarnath Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. (1975)
3 SCC 276

8. Lalji & ors. Vs St. of U.P. (1989) JIC 172 SC

9. Kattukulangara Madhvan Vs Majeed & ors.
(2017) 2 SCC (Cri.) 611

10. Supdt. of Police,C.B.I. Vs Tapan Kumar
Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175

11. St. of U.P. Vs Naresh (2011) 4 SCC 324

12. Dalip Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj.(1954) 1
SCR 145

13. Kartik Malhar Vs St. of Bih.(1996) 1 SCC 614

14. St. of U.P. Vs Krishna Master (2010) 12 SCC
324