IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL

<>

&

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN

<>

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 565 of 2016

<>

LALE @ LALLU RAVAT

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Sudhanshu Singh Chouhan - Advocate for appellant.

<>

Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

<>

Reserved on : 05/02/2026

<>

Delivered on : 24/02/2026

<>

JUDGMENT

<>

Per

<>

: Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen

<>

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is filed by the

appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 12.02.2016 passed by the

learned 1

st

Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi, District Sidhi in S.T.

No.60/2014, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the

appellant in following terms as under :-

Conviction

<>

Sentence

<>

Section Act Imprisonment Fine

Imprisonment

in lieu of fine

450 I.P.C.

R.I. for 5

years

Rs.1,000/-

R.I for 3

months

376 of

IPC r/w

Section 3/4 of

POCSO Act

I.P.C. &

POCSO

Act

R.I. for Life Rs.10,000/-

Additional R.I.

for 1 -1 year

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that, as per the prosecution

1 CRA-565-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15874

case, on 17.02.2014 at about 08:30 p.m., when the prosecutrix, aged about 8

years, was at home with her two nieces and her mother, brother, and sister-in-

law had gone to attend a Barahon function at a relative’s house, the

appellant/accused allegedly committed forcible sexual intercourse with her

without her consent. It is further submitted that the appellant is innocent and

has been falsely implicated due to a prior dispute between him and the mother

of the prosecutrix. It is also contended that there are several contradictions,

omissions, and improvements in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,

and therefore no implicit reliance can be placed upon such evidence.

Additionally, it is argued that the medical report does not support the version

of the prosecutrix, and according to the doctor, no definite opinion regarding

forcible sexual intercourse could be given by Dr Babita Khare (PW-9) and as

per her opinion, an attempt was made to have sexual intercourse with victim.

In such a situation, the accused cannot be held guilty under Section 376 IPC

r/w Section 3/ 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. In

these circumstances, it is prayed that the judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the appellant be acquitted

from the aforesaid charges.

3. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State,

supported the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. From the evidence of Lavkush Pandey (PW-8), it appears that in the

Scholar Register of the Govt. High School, Paigma victim's date of birth is

recorded as 08.08.2005 at Sl. No.1868. This witness had also produced the

original record/register of Session year 2006 before trial Court, which is Ex.P-

2 CRA-565-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15874

6. On the basis of his evidence, it appears that victim's date of birth is

08.08.2005 and the date of incident is 17.02.2014. Mother of victim (PW-2)

and Bhagirathi Kol (PW-3) have also stated that the age of victim was eight

years and that fact was not challenged by the defence counsel in the cross-

examination of those witnesses. As far as the question of the age of the victim

is admittedly proved that at the time of incident, she was less than 10 years.

6. Prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed in her statement that at the time of

incident, she was studying in Class-III in Government School, Village

Paigma. There was Barho function at the house of her elder sister and she

along with her all family members went there. Due to sleep, she came back to

her house along with her two nieces. While she was sleeping in her house, the

accused came, caught hold of her, inserted his hand inside her underwear, and

thereafter inserted his penis into her vagina, causing bleeding. Upon her

raising an alarm and crying, her sister-in-law (bhabhi) arrived, and the accused

fled away. She informed her mother about the incident, who in turn informed

other family members. She was in pain and bleeding from her vagina. The

next morning, her mother took her to Police Station Bahri, where the report

(Ex.P-1) was lodged. Her consent for medical examination was obtained

(Ex.P-2). In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she had not

identified the accused and reaffirmed that she had identified him.

7. PW-2, the mother of the prosecutrix, stated that at the relevant time

her daughter was 8 years old and studying in Class III. When she returned

home, she found her daughter crying and bleeding from her private parts. The

prosecutrix informed her that the accused had committed a wrongful act with

her. Due to the late hour, she did not lodge the report the same night but went

3 CRA-565-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15874

to Police Station Bahri the next morning. She accompanied her daughter to

District Hospital, Sidhi, for medical examination and gave consent (Ex.P-2).

8. P.W.-3, brother of prosecutrix, deposed that at about 10:00 p.m. his

wife informed him on mobile phone that Lale @ Lallu Rawat raped his sister

in his house at about 08:30 p.m. Upon receiving the information, he returned

to his house and saw that his sister was lying in the house and told him that

accused Lale came into her house, took off her panty and committed rape with

her.

9. Smt. Mohniya (PW-4) deposed that on the date of incident, a Barhon

function was organized at her house and they were busy in serving food to the

relatives, then after hearing the noise, she came to the house of victim and saw

that victim was lying on the floor. The blood was oozing out from the private

part of the victim and the clothes of victim were wet with blood and she was

crying.

10. Sobhnath Kol (PW-5) has also deposed that on the date of incident

in the night, after hearing the noise, he reached the place of occurrence and

saw that victim was weeping and lying on the floor and her underwear was

stained with blood. Victim had told her mother that accused Lale had raped

her. Police had also prepared the spot map Ex.P-4.

11. Savita Rawat (PW-6) has supported the prosecution story and stated

that phone of her husband came on her mobile, then she came out from her

house and she was talking her husband, then the accused came out from her

uncle's house and accused ran away. After hearing the noise, she went to her

uncle's house and saw that the blood was oozing out from the private part of

4 CRA-565-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15874

the victim and victim was lying in the bed (charpai) at that time. Victim told

her that accused Lale had come into her house and he forcibly committed

sexual intercourse with her.

12. Sukhdev (PW-7) stated that on the next day of the incident, he came

to know about the incident when police came. The police had arrested the

accused Lale @ Lalle Rawat and took him away.

13. Smt. Sangeeta Singh (PW-14) stated that on 18.02.2014, she was

posted as Sub Inspector in Women Cell Sidhi. On the said date, she went to

Bahri Police Station on the complaint of mother of victim, regarding the crime

related to women and in relation to rape committed by the accused Lale @

Lallu Rawat. She lodged Crime No.56/14 agaisnt the accused under Section

376, 456 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. FIR is Ex.P-1. Thereafter she

recorded the statement of victim as per her version. After the statement, she

had taken the consent of victim and her mother for medical examination.

Consent is Ex.P-2. After that she prepared the medical examination form

(Ex.P-7). She was sent to District Hospital Sidhi by female Constable Sunita

Yadav. On that day, she had also recorded the statement of the victim's mother

as per her version. On 18.02.2014 after medical examination of victim, she

had received a sealed packet containing clothes of victim, a sealed packet

containing slide and a sealed packet containing sealed sample of the hospital.

On receiving these, she seized them in the presence of witnesses and prepared

seizure memo Ex.P-11. On 18.02.2014, she had also arrested the accused Lale

@ Lallu Rawat in the presence of witnesses and prepared arrest memo Ex.P-

13. After arresting the accused, for his medical examination , an examination

form Ex.P-8 was prepared and sent to District Hospital Sidhi for medical

5 CRA-565-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15874

examination by Constable Brijesh Kumar. After medical examination, on

receipt of a sealed packet from District Hospital Sidhi which contained the

underwear of accused Lale @ Lallu Rawat and a sealed packet containing a

slide and a sealed packet containing the sealed sample of the District Hospital.

Seizure memo is Ex.P-12 was prepared. Seized articles in the case was sent

by Superintendent of Police, Sidhi by letter No.-S.P./1530/14 for forensic

examination. The report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar

is Ex.P-14.

14. P.W.-9, Dr. Smt. Bavita Khare, Medical Officer, District Hospital,

Sidhi, examined the prosecutrix on 18.02.2014. She found that the victim's

secondary sexual characteristics had not developed. There was a lacerated

wound measuring 1 cm x 1 cm on the genital region. The child was in severe

pain. Blood-stained clothes were sealed and handed over to the police. She

opined that sexual intercourse had been attempted.

15. Dr. Rajeev Dwivedi (PW-10) stated that on 18.02.2014, he was

posted as Medical Officer at the District Hospital Sidhi. On that date,

Constable No.230, Brijesh Kumar of Police Station Bahri had brought the

accused Lale Rawat @ Lallu before him for examination. As per his opinion,

the accused was found capable to sexual intercourse. He also stated that he by

extracting the semen from the accused Lale @ Lallu sent to the police station

with his clothes sealed and Constable Brijesh Kumar. His report is Ex.P-8.

16. Rajesh Kumar Prajapati (PW-11) stated that on 28.02.2014, he was

posted on the post of Patwari at Patwari Halka Pengwa Aabad. On that date,

he visited the place of incident and prepared the spot map Ex.P-9 and also

prepared the Panchnama Ex.P-10 in the presence of dignitaries people of the

6 CRA-565-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15874

village and he had sent the report to Station House Officer.

17. Sunita Yadav (PW-12) stated that on 18.02.2014, she was posted as

Lady Constable at Police Station Bahri. She stated that she brought victim

aged 8 years to District Hospital Sidhi with application for medical

examination. After getting her medical examination done, a sealed packet

containing the victim's clothes salwar and panty, a sealed packet containing

the vaginal slide of the victim and a sealed sample of the District Hospital

Sidhi were produced before the Sub Inspector, Sangeeta Singh, Women Cell

Sidhi. Sub Inspector, Sangeeta seized the aforesaid articles. Seizure memo is

Ex.P-11. On 18.02.2014 from District Hospital Sidhi itself the underwear of

accused was in a sealed packet and the semen slide and the sealed sample of

District Hospital Sidhi, all the above mentioned items were in a sealed packet,

on being presented before her by Constable Brijesh Tiwari, the same were

seized by Sub Inspector Sangeeta Singh and seizure memo Ex.P-12 was

prepared.

18. Brijesh Kumar Tiwari (PW-13) stated that on 18.02.2014 he was

posted as Constable at Police Station Bahri. He deposed that on the said date,

Constable 203 of Women Cell, Sidhi had handed over a sealed packet

containing underwear of the accused Lallu Rawat, a sealed packet containing

vaginal slide of the accused and a sealed sample of the District Hospital Sidhi

to Sub-Inspector Sangeeta Singh of the Women's Cell, Sidhi, whose seizure

was made by Sangeeta Singh as Ex.P-12.

19. B.P. Tripathi (PW-15) stated that on 18.02.2014, he was posted as

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sidhi in the Women's Cell, Sidhi. He admits

that on that date he had received the case dairy for investigation of Crime

7 CRA-565-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15874

No.56/14 under Section 376, 456 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of

Children From Sexual Offences Act, at Police Station Bahri. On 18.02.2014,

he had prepared the spot map Ex.P-4 at the instance of complainant in the

presence of witnesses. On said date, he also recorded the statements of

witnesses Lalan @ Bhagirathi Rawat, Smt. Mohaniya Rawat, Sukhdev Sahu,

Lallu Sahu and Smt. Savita Rawat as per their version. On 19.02.2014, he had

visited the District Hospital, Sidhi and recorded the statement of victim in the

question-answer format. He also recorded the statements of witnesses

Sobhnath and Meena Rawat on 18.02.2014.

20. Arjun Prasad Gupta (DW-1) and Rajbahor Sahu (DW-2) were

produced by accused in defence and both witnesses are trying to establish that

the accused person was present in the program of Barhon and on that date

there was no incident happened, but both defence witnesses are not reliable

and it appears that both defence witnesses had come before the Court only at

the behest of the accused.

21. After analyzing the evidence which was produced by the

prosecution, it appears that victim (PW-1) clearly stated that on the date of

incident, in the night, accused had come to her house and took off her panty

and committed rape with her, due to which, blood was oozing from her private

part of the victim. It is also clear that after crying the victim, her sister-in-law

(Bhabhi) reached at the place of incident, appellant/accused fled away from

her house. This fact is also corroborated by Savita Rawat (PW-6). Mother of

victim (PW-2) also supported the statement of PW-1 that when she had

reached her house and had seen the victim lying in the house and victim

started to weep and told her about the incident.

8 CRA-565-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15874

22. On perusal of the statement of PW-3, it also appears that when he

had seen the victim, the victim was lying in the house and victim told all the

incident to the witnesses and it is also proved by the evidence of other

witnesses like Smt. Mohaniya (PW-4) and Sobhnath Kol (PW-5) that when

they had reached the house of the victim, they had seen the victim and found

that blood was oozing out from the private part of the victim and her clothes

were stained with blood.

23. From the evidence of Smt. Babita Khare, when she medically

examined the victim, she found lacerated wound of 1x1 cm. and also cloth of

the victim was stained with blood. In cross-examination of victim (PW-1),

mother of victim (PW-2), Bhagirath Kol (PW-3) and other witnesses, nothing

was found that the victim or her mother or her family was interested to falsely

implicate to the accused person regarding any prior enmity of the incident.

24. The main argument made on behalf of the accused is that Dr.

Babita Khare (PW-9) has stated in her opinion that an attempt was made to

have sexual intercourse with victim. In such a situation, the accused cannot be

held guilty under Section 376 IPC r/w Section 3/4 of Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act 2012. The above argument made on behalf of the

accused cannot be accepted because Dr. Babita Khare (PW-9) in her

examination found that there was 1x1 cm. sized torn wound in the private part

of the victim and at the time of the incident, the blue panty and white salwar

were stained with blood. It is necessary to mention here that complete

penetration is not necessary to establish the element of rape. In this regard, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyapal vs. State of Haryana; (2009)6 SCC 635

<>

in

para 18 of the judgment held as under:-

9 CRA-565-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15874

(VIVEK AGARWAL)

<>

JUDGE

<>

(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)

<>

JUDGE

<>

" 18. In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, 23rd Edn., at pp.897 and

928, it is stated:

"To constitute the offence of rape, it is not

necessary that there would be complete penetration of the

penis with the emission of semen and the rupture of

hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within the labia

majora or the vulva or pudenda, with or without the

emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is

quite sufficient for the purpose of law. It is, therefore,

quite possible to commit legally, the offence of rape

without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving

any seminal stains. ...

* * *

In small children, the hymen is not usually

ruptured, but may become red and congested along with

the inflammation and bruising of the labia. If

considerable violence is used, there is often laceration of

the fourchette and the perineum."

25. In view of aforesaid discussion, this criminal appeal fails and is

hereby dismissed

<>

.

26. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.

sp/-

10 CRA-565-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15874

11 CRA-565-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15874