Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahipal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 July, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
1 CRA-480-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 22nd OF JULY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 480 of 2014
MAHIPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri A.K.Jain and Ms. Nikita Jain, Advocates for the appellants.
Shri C.P.Singh, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
This Criminal Appeal, under section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., has been
filed against the judgment and sentence dated 15/3/2014 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in S.T. No.165/2013,
by which appellants have been convicted under section 376D of IPC and
sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer
additional imprisonment for 1 year and under section 450 of IPC to undergo
RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer additional
imprisonment of 1 year. An amount of Rs.15000/- each was directed to be
paid to victims PW1 and PW2 by way of compensation All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
2. Before considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court would like to comment upon the mistake committed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
2 CRA-480-2014
prosecution. It appears that appellants assaulted the parents, as well as,
victims and in the same transaction, took the victims to nearby places and
committed rape upon them. The uncle of the victims, lodged FIR which was
registered as Crime No. 96/2013. In that FIR, no allegation of rape was
made and it was alleged that the parents, victims and uncles of the victims
were beaten. The injured persons were sent for medical examination.
During medical examination, the victims “A” and “B” informed the Doctor
about rape. Accordingly, the victims “A” and “B” were again sent back to
police station, where on a written application from victim “A”, another FIR,
i.e., crime No. 97/2013 was registered. Thus, instead of lodging only one
FIR, Police registered two FIRs i.e. Crime No.96/13 for offence under
sections 452, 323, 325, 395, 397 of IPC read with S.11/13 of MPDVPK Act,
as well as, under section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and Crime No.97/13 for
offence under sections 376(2)(g), 450 of IPC and sections 4/6 of POCSO
Act, 2012. The present appeal arises out of Crime No.97/13, whereas on the
basis of Crime No. 96/2013, SCDOCT No. 28/2013 was
registered. Appellants Mahipal Singh, Rajesh, Jitendra Singh, Kuldeep, apart
from co-accused Lallo alias Ranjosingh, Chandan Singh S/o Jujhar Singh
and Rajesh S/o Hariram Jatav were tried in SCDOCT No. 28/13 and by
judgment dated 16/5/2019 passed by Special Judge (under the MPDVPK
Act), Karera, District Shivpuri they have been acquitted of the charges which
were levelled against them in SCDOCT No.28/13.
3. It is not out of place to mention here that initially, victims “A” and
“B”, their parents and uncles were medically examined and those M.L.C.s
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
3 CRA-480-2014
were filed along with the charge sheet filed in Crime No. 96/2013. On
disclosure by victims “A” and “B” to doctors, second FIR i.e., Crime No.
97/2013 was registered and victims “A”and “B” were again medically
examined and second MLC which was in respect of allegation of rape only
was filed in the present case. For the reasons best known to the prosecution,
the medical reports of the victims “A” and “B” as well as other injured
persons pertaining to their injuries on different part of their bodies, were not
filed in the present case.
4. In fact the prosecution should not have registered the second FIR
and should have added the allegations of rape in the first FIR i.e. in Crime
No.96/13. However, even assuming that Police was of the view that
although both the offences might have been committed in the same
transaction but since the offence of rape constituted a separate offence
therefore second FIR is necessary, then it should have also filed the MLC
of victims “A” and “B” as well as witnesses which were filed in SCDOCT
No.28/13. The medical reports which were filed in the present appeal are
confined to MLC of victims “A” and “B” after the allegations of rape were
levelled by them. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by
counsel for appellants that appellants have been acquitted in SCDOCT No.
28/13, but the Counsel for the appellants was not in possession of copy of
the judgment. However, Shri C.P.Singh, Govt.Advocate uploaded the
judgment dated 16/5/2019 passed by Special Judge (under the MPDVPK
Act), Karera, District Shivpuri in SCDOCT No.28/13 in the Reference
column of ERP. From the said judgment, it appears that both the victims and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
4 CRA-480-2014
their parents had suffered multiple injuries, but those documents were not
made part of the present trial. Furthermore, in paragraph 45 of the judgment
dated 16/5/2019 passed in SCDOCT No.28/13, the trial Court has also held
that no medical report pertaining to rape of victims was placed on record and
why the FIR of rape was lodged at a later stage has not been explained. The
trial Court has also acquitted on the ground that the identification of
appellants also appears to be doubtful and the statements of witnesses were
recorded belatedly.
5. Bet that whatever it may be.
6. The primary reason for acquittal of appellants in SCDOCT
No.28/13 is non filing of medical reports of the victims “A” and “B”, to
support their allegation of rape, whereas those documents were filed by the
prosecution in the present case.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala
reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 has held as under:-
“27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens
under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive
power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be
struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-
section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make
further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and
documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the
Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri)
479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to
conduct further investigation with the permission of the court.
However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant
subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police
in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more
cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs
whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2)Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:238525 CRA-480-2014
CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and
156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of
investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh
investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a
counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected
cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course
of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the
first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under
Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit
case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.”
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi
reported in (2002) 1 SCC 714 has held as under:-
“11. Learned counsel adopted an alternative contention that once
the proceedings initiated under FIR No. 135 ended in a final report
the police had no authority to register a second FIR and number it
as FIR No. 208. Of course the legal position is that there cannot be
two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case.
But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode,
they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and
investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same
investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted to the
court styling it as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an
information submitted to the court regarding the new discovery
made by the police during investigation that persons not named in
FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceedings
merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No.
135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every
investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been
committed and, if so, who have committed it.”
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved
Prakash reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292 has held as under:-
“21 [Ed.: Paras 21 and 22 corrected vide Official Corrigendum
No. F.3/Ed.B.J./86/2004 dated 15-10-2004.] . From the above it is
clear that even in regard to a complaint arising out of a complaint
on further investigation if it was found that there was a larger
conspiracy than the one referred to in the previous complaint then
a further investigation under the court culminating in another
complaint is permissible.
22 [Ed.: Paras 21 and 22 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.
F.3/Ed.B.J./86/2004 dated 15-10-2004.] . A perusal of theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:238526 CRA-480-2014
judgment of this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi
Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] also shows that
even in cases where a prior complaint is already registered, a
counter-complaint is permissible but it goes further and holds that
even in cases where a first complaint is registered and
investigation initiated, it is possible to file a further complaint by
the same complainant based on the material gathered during the
course of investigation. Of course, this larger proposition of law
laid down in Ram Lal Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC
(Cri) 479] is not necessary to be relied on by us in the present
case. Suffice it to say that the discussion in Ram Lal Narang
case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] is in the same line
as found in the judgments in Kari Choudhary [(2002) 1 SCC 714 :
2002 SCC (Cri) 269] and State of Bihar v. J.A.C.
Saldanha [(1980) 1 SCC 554 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 272 : AIR 1980 SC
326] . However, it must be noticed that in T.T. Antony
case [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] , Ram Lal Narang
case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] was noticed but
the Court did not express any opinion either way.
23. Be that as it may, if the law laid down by this Court in T.T.
Antony case [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] is to be
accepted as holding that a second complaint in regard to the same
incident filed as a counter-complaint is prohibited under the Code
then, in our opinion, such conclusion would lead to serious
consequences. This will be clear from the hypothetical example
given hereinbelow i.e. if in regard to a crime committed by the
real accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false
complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police
then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from
lodging a complaint giving his version of the incident in question,
consequently he will be deprived of his legitimated right to bring
the real accused to book. This cannot be the purport of the Code.
24. We have already noticed that in T.T. Antony case [(2001) 6
SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] this Court did not consider the
legal right of an aggrieved person to file counterclaim, on the
contrary from the observations found in the said judgment it
clearly indicates that filing a counter-complaint is permissible.”
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State
of Punjab, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 has held as under:-
“67. The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not
only because there were different versions but when new
discovery is made on factual foundations. Discoveries may be
made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage. Discovery
about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding,
as for example, in a case of this nature. If the police authorities didSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:238527 CRA-480-2014
not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the
matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and
when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or the High
Court to direct investigation in respect of an offence which is
distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already
been lodged.”
11. Thus, it is clear that if the Police Authorities discover some
additional allegations disclosing some larger issue, then second FIR may be
permissible. Thus, if the allegations in second FIR are different and they are
in respect of two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible.
Further, in respect of the same incident, if the accused in the first FIR comes
forward with a different version or counter-case, then investigation on both
the FIRs has to be conducted.
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the manner in which the
incident is alleged to have taken place, it constituted only a single
transaction, but in the wisdom of the Police, they thought that since
allegation of rape have come at a later stage, therefore, second FIR should be
registered. Since the question as to whether the FIR in the present case was
maintainable or not was never raised, therefore, further deliberation on the
said aspect is not required, except by holding that in fact the police should
have filed M.L.C.s of the victims “A” and “B”, their parents and uncles in
this case also and similarly the subsequent MLC of victims “A” and “B” in
SCDOCT No. 28/2013, but the police has miserably failed to do so.
However, this Court would like to refer to the judgment passed by Special
Judge (under the MPDVPK Act), Karera, District Shivpuri in SCDOCT
No.28/13 as it is relevant as per the provisions of S.40 of the Evidence Act..
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
8 CRA-480-2014
13. S.40 of the Evidence Act reads as under:-
“40. Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial.
The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law
prevents any Court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a
trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court
ought to take cognizance of a such suit, or to hold such trial.”
14. Thus, Section 40 provides that previous judgments are relevant to
bar second trial. Since, the judgment passed by Special Judge (under the
MPDVPK Act), Karera, District Shivpuri in SCDOCT NO.28/13 is not under
challenge, therefore, this Court can not set aside the said judgment on the
ground of non-filing of all relevant documents. However, this Court would
like to refer to the medical evidence of the victims “A” and “B” , as well as,
their parents and uncles, to find out as to whether the evidence led by
prosecution in the present trial is worth reliance or not ?
15. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 19/3/2013, victim “A”
lodged a written report that she is the resident of Ramnagar, Gadhai. On the
date of occurrence, she was sleeping in a room situated in her house,
whereas victim “B” was sleeping outside the house. At about 1 in the night,
Jitendra Rawat, Rajesh Rawat, Mahipal Rawat, Kuldeep Rawat (all
appellants) and one more person whose name is not known to the
complainant came there, and they were armed with weapons. They started
assaulting her parents. After hearing noise, she and her sister victim “B”
came out. Then, Jitendra and Rajesh took victim “B” to a hut where they
committed rape on her. Similarly, Mahipal and Kuldeep forcibly took her in
a room where they committed rape on her. An unknown person had locked
her parents in a room and was guarding from outside. Thereafter, her uncles
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
9 CRA-480-2014
“C” and “D” came there and then the accused persons ran away. The Police
after getting the victims medically examined and recording the statements of
victims and other witnesses filed chargesheet under sections 376(2)(g)
(d)/450 of IPC and Ss. 4/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
16. The trial Court, by order dated 8/5/2013 framed charges for
offences under sections 450, 376(d) of IPC and Ss.4/6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
17. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.
18. Prosecution examined complainant/victim “A” (PW1), another
victim “B” (PW2), uncle of victims namely “C” (PW3), another sister of
victims namely “E” (PW4), mother of complainant/vicitm “A” namely D
(PW5), Dr. M.L Agrawal (PW6), another relative of victims “F” (PW7),
Ashok Parihar (PW8), A.K.Sharma (PW9), D.R.Shakya (PW10), Indrajeet
Singh (PW11) and Dr. Dimple Arya (PW12).
19. Appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.
20. The trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted and
sentenced the appellants for the offences as mentioned above, but acquitted
them of the offence under Ss. 4/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
21. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Court
below, it is submitted by counsel for appellants that according to the
prosecution case, appellants had assaulted the victims “A” and “B”, their
parents and relatives. However, the medical report of the victims “A” and
“B” does not indicate that they were ever assaulted. It is further submitted
that in the FIR in Crime No.96/13 which was lodged on 19/3/2013 at 7.15
AM, no allegation of rape was made against the appellants. Therefore, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
10 CRA-480-2014
written complaint made by victim “A” (PW1) Ex. P.1 and FIR, Ex.P/21
registered on her written complaint on 19/3/2013 are bad in law.
2 2 . Per contra counsel for the State has supported the prosecution
case. As already pointed out counsel for the State has uploaded the
judgment of acquittal dated 16/5/2019 passed in SCDOCT No.28/13. By
referring to various paragraphs of the said judgment, it is submitted by
counsel for the State that in fact the victims “A” and “B”, their parents and
other relatives were badly beaten by appellants. It is further submitted that
registration of second FIR and non-filing of all the relevant documents in the
present case, was a mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer and
appellants should not get advantage of the same because not only they had
beaten the victims “A” and “B”, their parents and relatives but the victims
“A” and “B” were also subjected to gang rape. It is further submitted that
since, the appellants were also tried in SCDOCT No. 28/2013, therefore, if
the documents filed in the said trial are taken into consideration while
deciding this appeal, then no prejudice would be caused to them.
23. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
24. This Court has already mentioned about the mistake committed by
the Investigating Officer. If the Investigating Officer was of the view that in
the 1st FIR No. 96/2013, it was not alleged by the uncles of the victims “A”
and “B” that after beating the victims “A” and “B” ,their parents, the victims
“A” and “B” were also subjected to gangrape therefore a separate FIR should
be registered, then he should have ensured that the copy of medical reports
which were filed in SCDOCT No.28/13 are also filed in the present case, but
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
11 CRA-480-2014
that was not done, which created a huge but superficial vacuum and only on
account of disclosure made by counsel for appellants that appellants have
been acquitted in SCDOCT No.28/13, Shri C.P.Singh, Public Prosecutor
searched out for the copy of that judgment and uploaded it in the reference
section of ERP. Only then, this Court came to know that in fact the medical
reports of witnesses including the victims “A” and “B” which were filed in
SCDOCT No.28/13 were not filed in the present case. As already pointed
out, since the judgment arising out of the same transaction is relevant,
therefore, this Court would consider the medical report of victims as well as
their parents in order to verify as to whether victims had given a plausible
explanation of delay in lodging the FIR and whether the allegation of
gangrape by the victims “A” and “B” against the appellants is reliable or not
?
25. Before considering the evidence of victims “A”, “B” as well as
other witnesses, this Court would like to consider the medical report of
victims. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that these medical reports
were prepared after allegation of rape was levelled by the victims “A” and
“B” and the MLC done by Dr. Dimple Arya (PW12) was confined to the
allegation of rape only.
26. Dr. Dimple Arya (PW12) has stated that on 19/3/2013, she had
medically examined complainant/vicitm “A” (PW1) and found following
injuries on her body:-
“LMP – 15 days back, H/o Rape 24 hr back. Well oriented &
conscious.
GC FTN, BP-110/70 mm/hg, Pulse 72/min, P/A – soft
External Examination – Pain & Swelling on left side of arm causedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2385212 CRA-480-2014
by hard & blunt object. (illeg). Duration within 24 hrs. Simple in
nature.
No external injury seen on breast, chest, back of chest abdomen,
limb, hand.
PP Examination – secondary sexual characters are well developed.
2F insert in vagina
Hymen is recently ruptured & oozing of blood seen (illeg).
No violence on bulber. Externally sealed.
Taken – (1) 2 vaginal swab slides taken & handed over to
accompanying PC.
(2) a pink color salvar taken sealed & handed over to
accompanying PC at the time of examination worn.
Opinion – Hymen Recently Ruptured & violence mark on body.
Intercourse is forcefuly done. Duration within 24 hours.
Advised X-ray for age determination .”
The MLC report of the victim “A” (PW1) is Ex.P/25.
27. Similarly, Dr. Dimple Arya (PW12) had medically examined
another victim “B” (PW2) on the same day and had found following injuries
on her body :-
“LMP – 1 month back, H/o Rape within 24 hours
GC-F/T-N, BP-110/70 mm/hg, conscious, pulse 78/min, well
oriented
External examination – No mark of violence on breast, chest,
abdomen, limb & arm.
Complaint of pain in back of chest but no external injury seen.
Secondary sexual characters are well developed.
PP Examination – in vagina – 2 Fingers easily insert in vagina.
Hymen is Recently Ruptured & oozing of blood seen, hymen
(illeg)
Exm. painful.
No violence mark in vulba.
taken – (1) 2 vaginal swab slides taken sealed and handed over
accompanying PC.
(2) Yellow & Green Sulbar taken, sealed and handed over
accompanying PC.
at the time of examination, slight white stained (illeg).
My opinion – Hymen is Recently Ruptured so penetration has been
taken place.
Intercourse is done. Duration within 24 hours.
Advised X-ray for age determination.”
The MLC report of victim “B” (PW2) is Ex.P/26.
28. Dr. Dimple Arya (PW12) has specifically stated that the manner
in which hymens of both the victims “A” and “B” were found torn, the same
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
13 CRA-480-2014
cannot be caused on account of running or fall. According to Dr. Dimple
Arya (PW12), the rupture of hymen was raising a possibility of rape within a
period of 24 hours. Under these circumstances, it is clear that prosecution
has successfully proved that victims “A” (PW1) and “B” (PW2) were
subjected to gangrape.
Whether prosecution has proved the allegation of gang rape against the
appellants or not ?
29. The complainant/victim “A” (PW1), aged about 19 years, has
stated that all accused persons are known to her. The incident took place
about 3 months back at about 2 in the night. Mahipal, Rajesh, Kuldeep,
Lalua and Jitendra came to their house. Her parents were sleeping outside
the house. All the five accused persons started assaulting her parents by Iron
rods. After hearing the noise when she came out of the room, then she too
was assaulted. Her three uncles were assaulted. All members of her family
were locked inside a room and Lalua was guarding the door. Thereafter, the
appellants Kuldeep and Mahipal took her to a room and committed rape on
her, whereas Jitendra and Rajesh took another victim “B” to a hut where they
committed rape on her. She further stated that her clothes were removed and
rape was committed after catching hold of her hands and legs. After
committing rape, the appellants ran away. Thereafter, this witness took care
of her family members who were badly beaten. In the morning they went to
Police Station Karera. She was medically examined. Thereafter, she gave a
written application to SHO. Since victim “A” appeared to be an illiterate girl,
therefore, contents of her application (Ex.P/1) were read over to her and she
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
14 CRA-480-2014
accepted that such report was lodged by her. She disclosed her age as 18-19
years. She was sent to District Hospital, Shivpuri where she was medically
examined. Spot map (Ex.P/2) was prepared. Her statements were recorded.
In cross-examination, she stated that the incident took place at about 2 AM.
Her uncle was assaulted by all the accused persons. The accused persons had
assaulted them without any reason. When she tried to intervene, then she too
was assaulted. She denied that she had not received any injury. She also
denied that her parents had not received any injury. She denied that her uncle
had not received any injury. Four accused persons were having Mouser
weapon, whereas co-accused Lallo was having Sabbal. After assaulting and
committing rape on the victims “A” and “B” , the accused persons ran away.
The application (Ex.P/1) was written by the SHO. However, she denied that
she does not know that what was mentioned in the application (Ex.P/1). She
admitted that prior to lodging of complaint (Ex.P/1), a report of assault was
made. She denied that any deliberations were done. She denied that
appellants had not committed any rape. She further stated that all the accused
persons belong to the same family. She further stated that when she woke
up, she found that all the accused persons were assaulting members of her
family. She denied that she and another victim were not assaulted. She
further stated that she had sustained multiple injuries on her body. The
police personnel had seen the injuries sustained by her after report was
lodged by her uncle “C”. She had disclosed her injuries to Police and
thereafter she was sent for medical examination. When she was medically
examined by the doctor at Karera, then she had informed the doctor at Karera
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
15 CRA-480-2014
that she was subjected to rape also. Then she was sent back by the doctor to
Police Station. Thereafter, written complaint (Ex.P/1) was lodged.
Thus, it is clear that initially uncle of victim “A” namely “C” (P.W.3)
lodged an FIR in Crime No.96/13 in which no allegation of rape was
levelled. However, it is clear from the evidence of complainant/victim “A”
that when she was sent for medical examination to Karera hospital, then she
informed about the incident of rape to the doctor and, accordingly they were
again sent back to Police Station and complaint (Ex.P/1) was lodged. Only
thereafter Dr. Dimple Arya (PW12) had medically examined the victims “A”
and “B” for the incident of rape.
30. Another victim “B” (PW2) has also stated in the same manner.
She also stated that earlier the accused persons had assaulted her parents and
when she went to intervene, then she too was assaulted. Victim “A” was
raped by Kuldeep and Mahipal whereas Jitendra and Rajesh took her to a hut
where she was also gangraped by Jitendra and Rajesh. Thereafter, the
accused persons ran away. She lost her consciousness. She regained her
consciousness in Karera hospital where she informed the doctor and her
family members about gangrape on herself and victim “A” (PW1). Then
again they were sent back to Police Station Karera where written complaint
was made.
This witness was cross-examined. Even in the cross-examination, the
accused persons could not elicit any material information which may make
the evidence of this witness unreliable or untrustworthy.
31. If the evidence of victims “A” and “B” are considered in the light
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
16 CRA-480-2014
of their MLC reports (Ex.P/25 and P/26), then it is clear that they were
subjected to rape. As already pointed out, on account of mistake committed
by the Investigating Officer, MLC report of victims “A” and “B” by which 3
injuries were found on the body of victim “A” and 2 injuries were found on
the body of victim “B” were filed in SCDOCT No.28/2013. Paragraph 17 of
the judgment passed by Special Judge (under the MPDVPK Act), Karera,
District Shivpuri in SCDOCT No.28/2013 reads as under:-
“17. िच क सक डा टर ए. के. शमा अ.सा 19 ने 19.03.13 को सामुदाियक वा य के
करै रा म िच क सक के पद पर पद थ होकर कट कया है क आर क अभयराज 669 ने
आहत “A” को मे डकल पर ण हे तु उसके सम तुत कया था जसम उसके शर र पर
कुल 3 चोट पाई गई थी जसम चोट 1 बांये कंधे पर तथा भुजा पर चार गुणीत दो
सट मीटर का कं टयुजन चोट 2 बांयी जांघ पर 6 गुणीत दो सट मीटर का कं टयुजन एवं
चोट 3 के प म पीठ के नीचले ह से पर चार गुणीत दो सट मीटर का कं टयुजन का
होकर उ चोट पर ण से 24 घ टे के अंदर क होकर स त एवं भोथर व तु से आना तीत
होने पर .पी.27 क मे डकल रपोट तुत करते हुए साधारण कृ ित क चोट होना बताकर
यह कट कया है क इसी दनांक को आहत “B” का मे डकल पर ण करते हुए चोट .1
के प म िसर के पीछे 2 गुणा 2 से.मी. का क टू जन एवं चोट .2 के प म बायीं पीठ पर 4
गुणा 2 से.मी. का क टू जन स य एवं भोथर व तु से पहुच
ं ाया जाना कृ ित म साधारण
होकर पर ण से 24 घंटे क अविध के अंदर होकर .पी.28 क रपोट तुत करना बताया
है ।”
(The names of victims have been masked in order to hide their
identities)
32. Thus, it is clear that apart from the injuries found in the MLC of
victim “A” (Ex.P/25) and victim “B” (Ex.P/26), 3 more injuries were found
on the body of victim “A” and 2 more injuries were found on the body of
victim “B” which were duly proved by the prosecution in another sessions
trial i.e. SCDOCT No.28/2013. Thus, the explanation given by victims “A”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
17 CRA-480-2014
and “B” that they had disclosed the act of rape during their medical
examination stands fully corroborated by the MLC of victims “A” and “B”
i.e., Ex. P/25 and P/26 as well as the MLCs which were duly proved in
SCDOCT No.28/2013.
33. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the evidence of
victims “A” and “B” to the effect that initially their family members were
beaten by accused persons and when they came out of the house, then not
only they were beaten, but appellants Kuldeep and Mahipal also committed
rape on victim “A” (PW1) and appellants Jitendra and Rajesh committed rape
on victim “B” (PW2) is not doubtful. Although FIR in Crime No.96/13 was
lodged by uncle of victims namely “C” (PW3) but in that FIR , complainant
“C” had not disclosed the fact of rape for the reason that by that time the
relatives of victims “A” and “B” were not aware of the fact that victims “A”
and “B” were also raped. However, when the victims disclosed this fact to
the doctor during their medical examination, then victims “A” and “B” were
again sent back to the Police Station and after taking written application
(Ex.P/1) they were again subjected to further medical examination by Dr.
Dimple Arya (PW12) and the MLC report of victim “A” (Ex.P/25) and MLC
report of victim “B” (Ex.P/26) were prepared. According to both the MLC
reports, injuries were found in the internal organs of victims “A” and “B” and
it was found that they were recently subjected to rape.
34. Although it is established principle of law that if evidence of
victims is reliable and credible then the Court should not look for further
corroboration because that would add salt to the injuries of victims, however
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
18 CRA-480-2014
in the present case prosecution has also examined “C” (PW3), “E” (PW4)
who is sister of victims, “D” (PW5) who is mother of victim “A” and aunt of
victim “B” to support the evidence of victims “A” and “B”.
35. “C” (PW3) who is uncle of victims “A” and “B” has stated that
victims “A” and “B” are his niece. It was about 1-2 AM in the night. He was
watering the crops. In the night itself, his another niece “E” (PW4) informed
that some people are assaulting her parents. Accordingly, he came back to
the house and found that accused persons namely Rajesh, Mahipal, Jitendra,
Lallo, Kuldeep, Rajesh Jatav, Virendra Jatav were assaulting his brother,
bhabhi (sister-in-law) and other relatives by iron rods and handles of guns.
When he tried to intervene, then he too was assaulted. At that time, victims
“A” and “B” also tried to intervene, then they too were assaulted and this
witness and other relatives were locked inside a room. At about 4 AM,
brother of this witness came on the spot and unlocked the door. Thereafter
they went to Police Station Karera where they lodged the report of assault.
The injured persons were sent for medical examination. Victim “B” was
unconscious. She regained her consciousness in the hospital. Vicitms “A”
and “B” informed him that they were subjected to rape also and Mahipal and
Kuldeep had raped victim “A” and Rajesh and Jitendra had raped victim “B”
and Lallo was guarding the door. As victims “A” and “B” informed about the
rape, therefore, they were once again sent back to the Police Station where
victim “A” made written complaint and again victims “A” and “B” were sent
for further medical examination to Shivpuri. Kuldeep was arrested vide arrest
memo (Ex.P/3), Jitendra was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/4), Rajesh was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
19 CRA-480-2014
arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/5) and Mahipal was arrested vide arrest
memo (Ex.P/6). In cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of
watering his crops, he was all alone. When he came back to his house, then
the accused persons were still assaulting his family members. They went to
Police station between 7-8 in the morning. This witness has also proved the
FIR in Crime No.96/13 which was marked as Ex.D/2. He denied that he had
sold the land to Chandan. He also denied that on account of land dispute,
there is an old enmity. He further stated that before lodging of FIR, he did
not have any conversation with victim “A”.
A suggestion was given which was accepted by this witness that
because ” ictim was feeling ashamed, therefore, she did not narrate the
incident of rape to this witness”. This Court is of considered opinion that this
concession or admission of fact by defence counsel would be binding on the
appellants. It is true that any suggestion given in cross-examination of the
prosecution witnesses by the defence cannot be used as an evidence, but at
the same time it can be called in aid. The Supreme Court in the case of Balu
Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2023) 13 SCC 365 has
held as under:-
36. In Tarun Bora case [Tarun Bora v. State of Assam ,
(2002) 7 SCC 39 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1568] , this Court,
while considering the evidence on record took note of a
suggestion which was put to one of the witnesses and
considering the reply given by the witness to the
suggestion put by the accused, arrived at the conclusion
that the presence of the accused was admitted. We quote
with profit the following observations made by this
Court in paras 15, 16 and 17, respectively, as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
20 CRA-480-2014
(Tarun Bora case [Tarun Bora v. State of Assam, (2002)
7 SCC 39 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1568] , SCC pp. 43-44)
“15. The witness further stated that during the
assault, the assailant accused him of giving
information to the army about the United
Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). He further
stated that on the third night he was carried away
blindfolded on a bicycle to a different place and
when his eyes were unfolded, he could see his
younger brother-Kumud Kakati (PW 2) and his
wife Smt Prema Kakati (PW 3). The place was
Duliapather, which is about 6-7 km away from his
Village Sakrahi. The witness identified the
appellant Tarun Bora and stated that it is he who
took him in an Ambassador car from the residence
of Nandeswar Bora on the date of the incident.
16. In cross-examination the witness stated as
under:
‘Accused Tarun Bora did not blind my eyes nor he
assaulted me.’
17. This part of cross-examination is suggestive of
the presence of accused-Tarun Bora in the whole
episode. This will clearly suggest the presence of
the accused Tarun Bora as admitted. The only
denial is that the accused did not participate in
blind-folding the eyes of the witness nor assaulted
him.”
37. In Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana [Rakesh
Kumar v. State of Haryana , (1987) 2 SCC 34 : 1987
SCC (Cri) 256] , this Court was dealing with an appeal
against the judgment of the High Court affirming the
order of the Sessions Judge whereby the appellant and
three other persons were convicted under Section 302
read with Section 34IPC. While reappreciating the
evidence on record, this Court noticed that in the cross-
examination of PW 4 Sube Singh, a suggestion was
made with regard to the colour of the shirt worn by one
of the accused persons at the time of the incident. This
Court taking into consideration the nature of the
suggestion put by the defence and the reply arrived at
the conclusion that the presence of the accused, namely,
Dharam Vir was established on the spot at the time of
occurrence. We quote the following observations made
by this Court in paras 8 and 9, respectively, as under :
(SCC p. 36)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2385221 CRA-480-2014
“8. PW 3, Bhagat Singh, stated in his examination-
in-chief that he had identified the accused at the
time of occurrence. But curiously enough, he was
not cross-examined as to how and in what manner
he could identify the accused, as pointed out by
the learned Sessions Judge. No suggestion was
also given to him that the place was dark and that
it was not possible to identify the assailants of the
deceased.
9. In his cross-examination, PW 4 Sube Singh,
stated that the accused Dharam Vir, was wearing a
shirt of white colour. It was suggested to him on
behalf of the accused that Dharam Vir was
wearing a shirt of cream colour. In answer to that
suggestion, PW 4 said:’It is not correct that
Dharam Vir accused was wearing a shirt of cream
colour and not a white colour at that time.’ The
learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that
the above suggestion at least proves the presence
of accused Dharam Vir, on the spot at the time of
occurrence.”
38. Thus, from the above it is evident that the
suggestion made by the defence counsel to a witness in
the cross-examination if found to be incriminating in
nature in any manner would definitely bind the accused
and the accused cannot get away on the plea that his
counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions in
the nature of admissions against his client.
39. Any concession or admission of a fact by a defence
counsel would definitely be binding on his client,
except the concession on the point of law. As a legal
proposition we cannot agree with the submission
canvassed on behalf of the appellants that an answer by
a witness to a suggestion made by the defence counsel
in the cross-examination does not deserve any value or
utility if it incriminates the accused in any manner.
40. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence
that the initial burden to establish the case against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt rests on the
prosecution. It is also an elementary principle of law
that the prosecution has to prove its case on its own legs
and cannot derive advantage or benefit from the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
22 CRA-480-2014
weakness of the defence. We are not suggesting for a
moment that if prosecution is unable to prove its case on
its own legs then the Court can still convict an accused
on the strength of the evidence in the form of reply to
the suggestions made by the defence counsel to a
witness. Take for instance, in the present case we have
reached to the conclusion that the evidence of the three
eyewitnesses inspires confidence and there is nothing in
their evidence on the basis of which it could be said that
they are unreliable witnesses. Having reached to such a
conclusion, in our opinion, to fortify our view we can
definitely look into the suggestions made by the defence
counsel to the eyewitnesses, the reply to those
establishing the presence of the accused persons as well
as the eyewitnesses in the night hours. To put it in other
words, suggestions by itself are not sufficient to hold
the accused guilty if they are incriminating in any
manner or are in the form of admission in the absence
of any other reliable evidence on record. It is true that a
suggestion has no evidentiary value but this proposition
of law would not hold good at all times and in a given
case during the course of cross-examination the defence
counsel may put such a suggestion the answer to which
may directly go against the accused and this is exactly
what has happened in the present case.
41. The principle of law that in a criminal case, a lawyer
has no implied authority to make admissions against his
client during the progress of the trial would hold good
only in cases where dispensation of proof by the
prosecution is not permissible in law. For example, it is
obligatory on the part of the prosecution to prove the
post-mortem report by examining the doctor. The
accused cannot admit the contents of the post-mortem
report thereby absolving the prosecution from its duty
to prove the contents of the same in accordance with
law by examining the doctor. This is so because if the
evidence per se is inadmissible in law then a defence
counsel has no authority to make it admissible with his
consent.
42. Therefore, we are of the opinion that suggestions
made to the witness by the defence counsel and the
reply to such suggestions would definitely form part of
the evidence and can be relied upon by the Court along
with other evidence on record to determine the guilt of
the accused.
43. The main object of cross-examination is to find out
the truth on record and to help the Court in knowing the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
23 CRA-480-2014
truth of the case. It is a matter of common experience
that many a times the defence lawyers themselves get
the discrepancies clarified arising during the cross-
examination in one paragraph and getting themselves
contradicted in the other paragraph. The line of cross-
examination is always on the basis of the defence which
the counsel would keep in mind to defend the accused.
At this stage, we may quote with profit the observations
made by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Govind v. State of M.P. [Govind v. State of
M.P., 2004 SCC OnLine MP 344 : 2005 Cri LJ 1244]
The Bench observed in para 27 as under : (SCC OnLine
MP)
“27. The main object of cross-examination is to
find out the truth and detection of falsehood in
human testimony. It is designed either to destroy
or weaken the force of evidence a witness has
already given in person or elicit something in
favour of the party which he has not stated or to
discredit him by showing from his past history and
present demeanour that he is unworthy of credit. It
should be remembered that cross-examination is a
duty, a lawyer owes to his clients and is not a
matter of great personal glory and fame. It should
always be remembered that justice must not be
defeated by improper cross-examination. A lawyer
owes a duty to himself that it is the most difficult
art. However, he may fail in the result but fairness
is one of the great elements of advocacy. Talents
and genius are not aimed at self-glorification but it
should be to establish truth, to detect falsehood, to
uphold right and just and to expose wrongdoings
of a dishonest witness. It is the most efficacious
test to discover the truth. Cross-examination
exposes bias, detects falsehood and shows mental
and moral condition of the witnesses and whether
a witness is actuated by proper motive or whether
he is actuated by enmity towards his adversaries.
Cross-examination is commonly esteemed the
severest test of an advocate’s skill and perhaps it
demands beyond any other of his duties exercise
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
24 CRA-480-2014
of his ingenuity. There is a great difficulty in
conducting cross-examination with creditable skill.
It is undoubtedly a great intellectual effort.
Sometimes cross-examination assumes
unnecessary length, the Court has power to control
the cross-examination in such cases. (See
Wrottescey on cross-examination of witnesses).
The Court must also ensure that cross-examination
is not made a means of harassment or causing
humiliation to the victim of crime [See State of
Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab v. Gurmit
Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 316]
].”
44. During the course of cross-examination with a view
to discredit the witness or to establish the defence on
preponderance of probabilities suggestions are hurled
on the witness but if such suggestions, the answer to
those incriminate the accused in any manner then the
same would definitely be binding and could be taken
into consideration along with other evidence on record
in support of the same.
45. However, it would all depend upon the nature of the
suggestions and with what idea in mind such
suggestions are made to the witness. Take for instance
in case of a charge of rape under Section 376 of the
Penal Code, the statement of the accused contained
plain denial and a plea of false implication, a
subsequent suggestion by the defence lawyer to the
prosecutrix about consent on her part would not, by
itself, amount to admission of guilt on behalf of the
accused. In cases of rape, it is permissible for the
accused to take more than one defence. In such type of
cases a suggestion thrown by the defence counsel to a
prosecution witness would not amount to an admission
on the part of the accused. At the same time, if the
defence in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix,
with a view to support their alternative case of consent
procure answers to the questions in the form of
suggestions implicating the accused for the offence of
rape then such suggestions would definitely lend
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
25 CRA-480-2014
assurance to the prosecution case and the Court would
be well justified in considering the same. We may give
one more example of a case where the accused would
plead right of a private defence. Such a defence is
always available to the accused but although if such a
defence is not taken specifically during the course of
trial yet if the evidence on record suggests that the
accused had inflicted injuries on the deceased in
exercise of his right of private defence then the Court
can definitely take into consideration such defence in
determining the guilt of the accused. However, if a
specific question is put to a witness by way of a
suggestion indicative of exercise of right of private
defence then the Court would well be justified in taking
into consideration such suggestion and if the presence
of the accused is established the same would definitely
be admissible in evidence.”
36. Thus, it is clear that if any suggestion is given by the accused
to a witness during his cross-examination and if the suggestion is
inculpatory in nature, then it would certainly bind the accused and the
accused cannot claim that his lawyer had no authority to put such a
suggestion to the witness. Furthermore, in view of S.273 of Cr.P.C.,
witnesses are always examined in presence of accused and if the
accused was of the view that the suggestion which is being put by his
counsel is contrary to his instructions, then he should have interfered in
the matter. Since it was not done and a suggestion was given that as
“victim was feeling ashamed therefore she did not narrate the incident
of rape to him but narrated the incident to doctor which was accepted
by witness “C” (PW3)” therefore it is clear that prosecution has
successfully explained non mentioning of allegation of rape in the first
FIR which was registered as Crime No.96/13.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
26 CRA-480-2014
37. “E” (PW4) who is the sister of victims “A” and “B” has
stated that as soon as she noticed that accused persons are assaulting
her uncle and relatives, then she rushed to the Well where her uncle “C”
(PW3) was watering the crops. The entire incident was narrated to
him. It was further stated by her that Mahipal and Kuldeep had raped
victim “A”, whereas Rajesh and Jitendra had raped victim “B”.
Thereafter the accused persons ran away. She helped her sisters to wear
the clothes. In the cross-examination she admitted that victims “A” and
“B” were not raped by the accused persons in her presence. However,
she claimed that victims “A” and “B” were lying in a room and hut in
unconscious condition and at that time she had made them to wear
clothes.
38. “D” (PW5) is the mother of victim “A” and aunt of victim
“B”. She has also supported the prosecution case. She too was cross-
examined but appellants could not elicit anything from her evidence to
make her evidence unreliable.
39. Dr. M.L. Agarwal (PW6) had conducted the ossification test
of victim “A” and the ossification test report is Ex.P/7, according to
which the age of victim “A” was more than 18 years and less than 20
years. Similarly, he conducted the ossification test of victim “B” and
the ossification test report is Ex.P/10, according to which, the age of
victim “B” was found to be more than 18 years and less than 20 years.
40. Another uncle of victims namely “F” (PW7) is also one of
the members of family who was present in the house and was also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
27 CRA-480-2014
assaulted by the accused persons. He has also narrated the same story.
He was cross-examined by the accused persons but they could not elicit
any circumstance which may make his evidence unreliable.
41. Ashok Parihar (PW8) is one of the Investigating Officer.
42. A.K.Sharma (PW9) was working as Health Officer and was
posted in CHC, Karera. He had medically examined the accused
Jitendra, Mahipal, Kuldeep and Rajesh. The blood samples of all the
accused persons were collected. MLC reports of appellants Jitendra,
Mahipal and Kuldeep are Ex.P/15, Ex.P/16, Ex.P/17 and Ex.P/18
respectively. Although according to this witness, on physical
examination of appellants, smegma was found present on their private
part, but presence of smegma would not nullify the allegation of rape
because rape was allegedly committed on 19/3/2013 and accused
persons were medically examined on 25/3/2013.
43. D.R.Shakya (PW10) is the Head Constable posted at Police
Station Karera. He had seized the sealed packets of clothes of victim
“B” and slide, as well as specimen of seal brought by lady constable
NO.141 from District Hospital, Shivpuri vide seizure memo (Ex.P/19).
Similarly, he had also seized the sealed packet containing clothes of
victim “A” and a slide and a specimen of seal brought from District
Hospital, Shivpuri vide seizure memo (Ex.P/20).
44. Indrajeet Singh (PW11) is also the Investigating Officer.
45. Thus, it is clear that witnesses “C” (PW3), “E” (PW4), “D”
(PW5) and “F” (PW7) have supported the allegations made by victims
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
28 CRA-480-2014
“A” and “B”. It is not out of place to mention here that these witnesses
were also allegedly beaten by the accused persons. The MLC reports of
these witnesses were proved by prosecution in SCDOCT No.28/2013.
Paragraphs 18, 19, 20 of the said judgment deal with the MLC of
injured persons which read as under:-
18. अ तर इसी सा ी ने आहत “C” का मे डकल पर ण करते हुए चोट
.1 के प म बायीं ओर के सीने पर 5 गुणा 3 से.मी. का क टू जन एवं चोट
.2 के प म 4 गुणा 2 से.मी. का बाया घुटने का क टू जन तथा चोट .3 के
प म 3 गुणा 2 से.मी. का सर के दा हने ह से म क टू जन स त एवं भोथर
व तु ारा पहुच
ं ाया जाकर कृ ित म साधारण होकर पर ण से 24 घंटे क
अविध म होकर .पी.28 क रपोट के सुसंगत थान पर उसके ह ता र होना
बताकर यह भी कट कया है क आहत “D” के मे डकल पर ण करने पर
चोट .1 के प म उसके मुहं पर होट पर सूजन, चोट .2 के प म सीने पर
मुदं चोट होकर कोई बाहर चोट नह होकर पर ण क सलाह द गयी तथा
चोट .3 के प म दा हनी टांग पर बीच म डे ढ़ गुणा एक से.मी. एवं आहत को
अध बेहोश अव था म प सरे ट 74 ित िमिनट क होकर चोट .1 एवं 3
स त एवं भोथर व तु से पहुच
ं ाई जाकर चोट .2 क ए सरे क सलाह दे कर
आहत को िशवपुर अ पताल रै फर कर .पी.30 क मे डकल रपोट पर उनके
ह ता र होना बताया है ।
19. अ तर इस सा ी ने “F” का मे डकल पर ण करते हुए चोट .1 के प
म बायीं जांघ पर 6 गुणा 2 से.मी. का क टू जन, चोट .2 के प म दा हने
घुटने पर 3 गुणा 2 से.मी. क खर च, चोट .3 के प म बायीं भुजा पर 4
गुणा 2 से.मी. का क टू जन, चोट .4 के प म बायीं भुजा पर 3 गुणा 2
से.मी. का क टू जन, चोट .5 के प म दा हने कंधे पर 5 गुणा 2 से.मी. का
क टू जन, चोट .6 के प म पीठ पर िनचले ह से म 3 गुणा 2 से.मी. का
क टू जन पाते हुए उ सम त चोट स त एवं भोथर व तु से 24 घंटे के
अ दर पहुच
ं ाया जाना कृ ित म साधारण पाते हुए .पी.31 क मे डकल रपोट
के सुसंगत थान उनके ह ता र बताते हुए यह भी कट कया है क आहत
पातीराम के पर ण म कुल 9 चोट पाई गयी थी। चोट .1 खर च उपरे ओंठ
पर जसका आकार 2 गुणा 1 से.मी. का, चोट .2 खर च नाम पर जसका
आकार 1 गुणा 1 से.मी. का, चोट .3 पीठ पर दा हनी ओर जसका आकार 5Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
29 CRA-480-2014
गुणा 4 से.मी. का क टू जन, चोट .4 दा हने बखोरा जसका आकार 6 गुणा 2
से.मी. का क टू जन, चोट .5 पीठ पर बांयी तरफ जसका आकार 5 गुणा 3
से.मी. का क टू जन, चोट .6 दा हनी अ भुजा पर जसका आकार 4 भुजा
पर जसका आकार 4 गुणा 2 से.मी. का क टू जन, चोट .7 पीठ पर िनचले
ह से म जसका आकार 4 गुणा 2 से.मी. का क टू जन, चोट .8 खर च बांये
घुटने पर जसका आकार 2 गुणा 2 से.मी. का, चोट . 9 खर च दा हने घुटने
पर जसका आकार 3 गुणा 2 से.मी. का था। उ चोट स त एवं भोथर व तु
से आना तीत होकर चोट .3,4,6 के िलए ए सरे परामश दया जाकर जला
िच क सालय िशवपुर रे फर कया जाकर .पी.32 क मे डकल रपोट पर
सा ी ने उसके ह ता र होना बताये ह।
20. िच क सक डॉ. एम.एल.अ वाल अ.सा.20 ने दनांक 19.03.13 को
ए सरे से शन का भार होना बताकर आहत “G” (father of victim “A”)
क बायीं छाती केपुला एवं दा हनी अ भुजा का ए सरे पर ण करने पर
लेट क.782 .पी.33 के आधार पर .पी.34 क रपोट तुत करते हुए बायीं
छाती क केपुला अ थी एवं ए ोिमयन ोसेस का भंग होना पाया गया और
शेष कोई अ थी भंग आहत के शर र पर नह ं था।
(The names of injured persons have been masked in order to hide
the identifies of victims “A” and “B”).
46. Thus, it is clear that witnesses “C” (PW3), “D” (PW5) and
“F” (PW7) had also suffered injuries in the same incident. Thus,
presence of these witnesses on the spot is undoubtful.
47. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of considered opinion that not only the evidence of
victims “A” and “B” is reliable but their evidence is also fully
corroborated by medical evidence, as well as, evidence of “C” (PW3),
“D” (PW5) and “F” (PW7) and the MLC reports of victims “A” and “B”
as well as witnesses “C” (PW3), “D” (PW5) and “F” (PW7) were also
proved by the prosecution in SCDOCT No.28/13. Thus, it is held that
prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of appellants beyond
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
30 CRA-480-2014
reasonable doubt.
48. Accordingly, conviction of appellants for offence under
sections 376D and 450 of IPC are hereby affirmed.
49. Heard, on the question of sentence.
50. It is submitted by counsel for appellants that life
imprisonment awarded by the trial Court may be reduced to the period
of 20 years.
51. Considered the submission made by counsel for appellants.
52. S.376D of IPC was substituted by Act No. 13 of 2013
(w.r.e.f. 3-2-2013), whereas the incident took place on 19/3/2013.
Thus, it is clear that on the date of commission of offence S.376D
which provides minimum jail sentence of 20 years which may extend to
life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that persons’
natural life with fine, was in force. As already pointed out, appellants
had not only mercilessly beaten victims and their family members, but
they also committed gang rape upon victims “A” and “B”. Under these
circumstances, life imprisonment awarded by the Court below cannot
be said to be disproportionate. Accordingly, no interference is required
on the question of sentence.
53. By order dated 6/3/2024, appellant No.1 Mahipal Singh was
granted bail. By order dated 16/5/2024, appellant No.2 Rajesh and
appellant No.4 Kuldeep were granted bail. It appears that appellant
No.3 Jitendra is in jail. Accordingly, personal bond as well as surety
bonds of appellants Mahipal, Rajesh and Kuldeep are hereby cancelled.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23852
31 CRA-480-2014
They are directed to immediately surrender before the trial Court within
a period of one month for undergoing the remaining jail sentence,
otherwise, the Trial Court shall issue perpetual warrant of arrest against
absentee accused. Appellant No.3 Jitendra is in jail. He shall undergo
the remaining jail sentence.
54. Let copy of this judgment be forwarded to the trial Court
along with the record of the trial Court for necessary information and
compliance.
55. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-08-2026
16:02:28
