Crl.A. 112 of 2006 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2006

RAMJILAL & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. The  three  appellants  have  been  convicted  for  

offences  punishable  under  Sections  366  and  376  of  the  

Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo five  

years rigorous imprisonment for the first offence and ten  

years  rigorous  imprisonment  for  the  second  one.   The  

allegation is that they had committed gang rape on the  

prosecutrix, P.W. 1, who was a young widow.  The trial  

court and the High Court have in addition relied on the  

evidence of P.W. 3  and P.W. 6, the parents of the victim  

P.W.  1,  who  have  categorically  stated  that  on  the  

intervening  night  of  28th and  29th June,  1996,  the  

prosecutrix  had been sleeping inside their home when the  

appellants reached that place in a jeep armed with deadly  

weapons and they had told  P.W. 6 to give his daughter as

Crl.A. 112 of 2006 2

a wife to Ramjilal appellant and on his refusal he had  

been threatened by the appellants on which he had run  

away from the spot.  As per the prosecution story the  

prosecutrix   was  thereafter  forced  into  the  jeep  and  

taken to the Amarkhaua jungle and repeatedly raped over a  

period  of  five  days  and  then  abandoned.   She  was  

subsequently recovered by the police and produced before  

the doctor for medical examination who found that she had  

been  subjected  to  recent  sexual  intercourse  and  that  

there were several other injuries on her person as well.  

2.   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  

and find that the statements of P.W. 1, the prosecutrix,  

and  her  parents  P.W.  3  and  6  along  with  the  medical  

evidence clearly supports the story that the prosecutrix  

had  been  abducted  and  subjected  to  gang  rape  by  the  

appellants.  We, therefore, have absolutely no reason to  

interfere  with  the  concurrent  findings  of  conviction  

recorded by the courts below.  

3.  The facts of the case also depict a sordid and  

shocking  state  of  affairs.   The  facts  ought  to  have  

resulted in a deterrent sentence and the sentence of ten  

years was clearly inadequate.  However, as the State of  

M.P. has not chosen to come in appeal on the question of

Crl.A. 112 of 2006 3

sentence, we are unable to interfere on this aspect at  

this belated stage.

5. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

                ........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI JULY 12, 2011.