Vs. State of M.P  Insc 325 (12 May 2006)
& P.P. Naolekar
Gabbu was tried for committing offences under Section 366 read with Section 34
and under Section 506-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Sheru who was
charged under Sections 366, 376 and 506-B, IPC and Sardar charged under
Sections 368 and 506-B, IPC. The Session Court convicted the accused-appellant
under Sections 366 and 506-B, IPC and respectively sentenced him to undergo two
years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and one year rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of the payment of fine
simple imprisonment for two months was awarded. Accused Sheru was convicted
under Section 366 and 376, IPC and the third accused Sardar was acquitted. The
High Court in appeals preferred by the accused appellant and the other accused Sheru,
confirmed the order of the Session Court. Feeling aggrieved by the order of
conviction and sentence, accused-appellant Gabbu has preferred this appeal by
special leave. The other accused Sheru has not filed any appeal and order of
conviction and sentence against him has attained finality.
the prosecution case, complainant Bisan Singh, the husband of prosecutrix, and
the prosecutrix were labourers and residing behind the Technical School, Dhar. On the night of 25.7.1992 when the complainant was
sleeping in his house, his wife Sita Bai went out of the house to attend the
call of nature and there the accused-appellant along with accused Sher Singh
alias Sheru at point of a weapon gave her threats and abducted her against her
wishes. The complainant kept on searching his wife and he went to the house of
accused Sheru at Brahmakundi and came to know that the accused was missing
since last night. He made search at other places also but could not find her.
He narrated the story to different persons who told him that the accused had
taken away his wife somewhere else. The report was lodged on 26.7.1992 at the
Police Station, Dhar, but the same was not registered properly.
the prosecution version, when the prosecutrix went to attend the call of nature
she was threatened by the accused-appellant by showing a knife and the other
accused put a hand on her mouth and they abducted her. The accused-appellant
accompanied the prosecutrix and the other accused upto the place called Gunabad.
the other accused took the prosecutrix away to Ghata village by truck and
thereafter to Bhanwar Kuan, Indore in a
she was taken to village Nibhodi where she was allegedly kept in the house of
the acquitted accused who was a distant relative of the other accused Sheru.
She was sexually exploited and raped by the other accused at that place. The prosecutrix
escaped from Nibhodi and reached her maternal uncle's place and narrated the
incident to him and her husband. A report to the Superintendent of Police
regarding this incident was given and the case was registered against the
accused persons on 22.10.1992.
this appeal, we are concerned with the case of accused Gabbu only who has been
convicted under Sections 366 and 506-B, IPC. So far as this accused is
concerned, the Session Court found that accused Gabbu and Sheru came to the
house of prosecutrix in the evening of the day of incident when her husband was
said to the prosecutrix that as no child was born to her they would administer
some medicine to her so that she would become pregnant and accordingly applied
some medicine on the hand of the prosecutrix. She raised alarm and later
informed her husband about the application of medicine by the other accused who
was accompanied by the accused-appellant, thereafter she was abducted by the
accused at night. The Session Court further recorded a finding that the prosecutrix
in her statement clearly stated that accused Sheru and Gabbu entered in her
house at night and accused Gabbu showed knife to her and Sheru put his hand on
her mouth and brought her upto Gunabad, the statement of the prosecutrix that
she was abducted by Gabbu cannot be disbelieved. So far as Section 506-B, IPC
is concerned, the Session Court held that accused- appellant Gabbu pointed
knife at her person and threatened to kill her and on the basis of her
evidence, the charge is proved.
High Court held that nothing is brought in the cross- examination of the prosecutrix
whereby the story of the incident narrated by her, should not be believed. The
story given by her is tell-tales and does not create any doubt about all what
has been said by her. The argument that normally a person will raise a cry when
he is being forcibly taken away, was dealt with by the High Court by recording
a finding that she did not raise alarm as she was frightened and it was to be
borne in mind that she was an illiterate, rural and rustic village lady who
would believe in superstitions, more particularly when in 10 years married life
she did not have a child and accused-appellant Gabbu had promised her that he
would do something by which she could have a child. The tribe to which the prosecutrix
belonged is known to believe in superstitions. The High Court observed that it
was not impossible that because of the fear she did not raise any cry, more
particularly when she was taken away to a place unknown to her.
as delayed FIR is concerned, it was held by the High Court that the complainant
had already gone to the police station immediately next date, i.e. on 26.7.1992
and made a complaint.
it was not registered by the police, a written complaint was made on 22.10.1992
when the prosecutrix returned back and thus the prosecution had established its
case and accordingly the High Court confirmed the order of conviction and
sentence passed against the accused-appellant.
prosecution case centres around the statement of the prosecutrix who was
examined as Witness No. 4. She deposed that on the day of incident in the
evening accused-appellant Gabbu came with the other accused Sher Singh (Sheru)
and they told her that she had no child and then asked her to show her hand. On
her refusal to show the hand, Gabbu forcibly caught her hand and accused Sheru
applied some medicine. Thereafter, they again came at 10-11 p.m.
forcibly made her to get up. Sheru forcibly caught her mouth and Gabbu pointed
the knife towards her and threatened not to raise alarm. She did not raise any
alarm because she was frightened.
and Gabbu took her on foot upto village Gunabad. Thereafter, she accompanied
the other accused Sheru as Gabbu, the accused- appellant, left them at Gunabad.
She further narrated about what happened to her when she went along with the
other accused. She agreed in her cross-examination that there was no door in
her hut and also no arrangement of light. Oil was applied by Sheru, the other
accused, forcibly. On the day of incident, she along with her husband was
sleeping on one single cot. She recognized Gabbu from his voice when he said if
she would raise alarm she would be killed. In this commotion, her husband got
up. The accused forcibly dragged her and took her away. She stated that she had
not gone on her own desire. The threat was given by Gabbu at village Gunabad.
appears from the evidence of the prosecutrix that the story of the prosecution
as alleged in the FIR that the prosecutrix was abducted when she had gone to
attend the call of nature has been given a complete go-bye by the prosecutrix
when she stated that the accused entered in her house where she was sleeping
with her husband and from there she was forcibly taken away by the accused- appellant
with the other accused. She also stated that due to the commotion her husband
woke up, yet the accused forcibly dragged her away from her house.
difficult to believe that the prosecutrix who is a matured lady married for 10
years would be made to walk from her place of residence to the other village
and she would not raise any hue and cry apart from the fact that her husband
who was sleeping with her had woken up and yet the accused had forcibly taken
the prosecutrix away from her house. The husband in natural course of conduct
would have resisted her wife being taken away forcibly. If he had some handicap
because of being single, he would have certainly raised alarm and called the
other persons. The place from where the prosecutrix was taken away, as referred
in the FIR on one hand and stated in the evidence of the prosecutrix on the
other, raises a grave doubt about the happening of the incident as alleged by
in lodging the FIR is another factor which creates doubt in the prosecution
from this, to constitute an offence under Section 366, IPC, it is necessary for
the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant-woman or
compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful
means, that such abduction took place with the intent that the complainant may
be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely
that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her
abduction. Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this
penal Section. So far as a charge under Section 366, IPC is concerned, mere
finding that a woman was abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that
the accused abducted the woman with intent that she may be compelled, or
knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in
order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to
be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the
prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section
366, IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section
have gone through the statement of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix nowhere
alleged that she was abducted with the intention to commit an offence, that she
was compelled to marry the accused or any other person or that the accused knew
that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or that it was
likely that she would be forced or seduced her to illicit intercourse.
story unfolded from the evidence led by the prosecution appears to be that the
accused-appellant along with the other accused in the evening went to the house
of the prosecutrix and the other accused applied some medicine on her hand so
that she might get pregnant after 10 years of marriage. The accused might have
persuaded her to accompany them so that they could administer the medicine to
her and she being an illiterate lady believing in the superstitions agreed to
accompany them. After the accused- appellant left both of them at village Gunabad,
the other accused had other intentions and committed the offence as alleged by
the prosecution. That does not ipso facto prove the fact that from the very
beginning the accused-appellant had any intention of inducing the prosecutrix
to forcibly marry him or the other accused or she was induced or seduced to
illicit intercourse with the accused- appellant or with the other person whose
company he left at Gunabad. There is no allegation that from the house of prosecutrix
upto Gunabad the accused-appellant made any advances against the prosecutrix so
as to show his intention of committing forcible intercourse with her.
overall consideration of the material placed on record by the prosecution, we
do not find that the prosecution has proved that the accused-appellant has
committed an offence under Section 366, IPC.
is a doubt as to the place of incident and the motive of the accused in taking away
the prosecutrix. We find it difficult to believe in the story put up by the prosecutrix
that she was forced to leave her place of residence under a threat by showing a
knife to her.
the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of
conviction and sentence passed by the Session Court and confirmed by the High
Court under Sections 366 and 506-B, IPC against the accused-appellant.