MUNNA Vs. STATE OF M.P.
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on
September 16,2014
MUNNA
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BHARWADA BHOGINBHAI HIRJIBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]STATE OF MAHARASHTRA STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD MAHARASHTRA STATE VS. CHANDRA PRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAIN:CHANDRA PRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAIN POLICE SUB INSPECTOR POLICE STATION SITABULDI NAGPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GURMITSINGH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MOHD CHAND VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-109] [REFERRED TO]GURMUKH SINGH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
ASGAR ANSARI VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
RANJANBEN MAHESHBHAI VASAVA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 OTHER(S) [LAWS(GJH)-2019-3-49] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SANJIV KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2017-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
BIRJU THAKUR VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RAM SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-103] [REFERRED TO]
ALAM CHAND VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
KISHOR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-108] [REFERRED TO]
MUFOSIL ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH RAWAT VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
ACHHELAL SON OF DWARIKA PRASAD JAISWAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KORBA (CG) [LAWS(CHH)-2019-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIRAM URAV SON OF KENDARAM URAV VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH) [LAWS(CHH)-2019-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. VARUN KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2015-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
SHIJU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDAN VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-473] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD CHAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2017-12-217] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIT KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
SUNNY VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. PRITHVI RAJ @ JOULL [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-154] [REFERRED]
SURESH MURMU AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
RANJANBEN MAHESHBHAI VASAVA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 OTHER (S) [LAWS(GJH)-2019-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
MOHIT KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-9-95] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR @ CHOKKALINGAM VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-859] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
BANSARI LAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
SONI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2016-9-258] [REFERRED TO]
KLENDRO TYNHIANG VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2017-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
VARUN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-87] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-9-113] [REFERRED TO]
DOMARA PRASAD S/O SHOBHIT RAM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH POLICE STATION [LAWS(CHH)-2019-4-117] [REFERRED TO]
SONAM PINTSO BHUTIA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2016-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
BHURA @ RASHID VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2018-5-425] [REFERRED TO]
HARISHANKAR VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2021-4-246] [REFERRED TO]
DINOO RAM KANWAT VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-8-130] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. BAL KRISHAN [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-78] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. PANKAJ SAMKADIA [LAWS(HPH)-2017-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-9-96] [REFERRED TO]
MATIUR RAHMAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
BALJINDER @ JOGINDER VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2016-9-108] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. ARJUN SINGH & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-106] [REFERRED TO]
YASHPAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. VARINDER KUMAR ALIAS RAVI [LAWS(HPH)-2017-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-6-25] [REFERRED TO]
DARBARA SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY TAMANG VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2015-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for which the appellant stands sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under both heads but the sentences are to run concurrently, apart from being sentenced to pay fine.
(2.)Case of the prosecution as per FIR is that on 19th April, 1993, when the prosecutrix (PW 1) was sleeping in her house at 1.00 A.M., the appellant along with co-accused Sahab Singh @ Mutta entered the house of the prosecutrix and both of them committed rape on the prosecutrix and then fled away. They were carrying knife which was shown to the prosecutrix to threaten her if she raised alarm. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband and lodged First Information Report at the Police Station on the next day. After investigation both the accused were sent up for trial.
The prosecutrix did not support the version against co-accused Sahab Singh @ Mutta. Accordingly, he was acquitted by the trial Court. Relying upon her version supported by her husband Balkishan (PW 2) and Kotwar of the village Manaklal (PW 3), the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant which has been confirmed by the High Court.
(3.)We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)Case of the prosecution as per FIR is that on 19th April, 1993, when the prosecutrix (PW 1) was sleeping in her house at 1.00 A.M., the appellant along with co-accused Sahab Singh @ Mutta entered the house of the prosecutrix and both of them committed rape on the prosecutrix and then fled away. They were carrying knife which was shown to the prosecutrix to threaten her if she raised alarm. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband and lodged First Information Report at the Police Station on the next day. After investigation both the accused were sent up for trial.
The prosecutrix did not support the version against co-accused Sahab Singh @ Mutta. Accordingly, he was acquitted by the trial Court. Relying upon her version supported by her husband Balkishan (PW 2) and Kotwar of the village Manaklal (PW 3), the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant which has been confirmed by the High Court.
(3.)We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.