Skip to content
Home » Criminal | Jakir v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl.A. No. 189 of 2003 SC

Criminal | Jakir v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl.A. No. 189 of 2003 SC

  • Uncategorized
Tags:

Criminal | (2009) 6 SCC 646

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Justice Dr.Arijit Pasayat and Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly

2009-05-06T00:00:00

Crl.A. No. 189 of 2003

J U D G M E N T

quot;-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the

correctness of the Judgment rendered by a Learned Single Judge

of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by

the present appellant who was appellant in Criminal Appeal No.

2750/98 before the High Court. The present appellant was

convicted after alleged commission of rape and abduction in terms

of Section 366 A and 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(IPC). Out of the five accused persons tried, two absconded and

the rest three were convicted by the Trial Court. Trial Court

imposed sentence of 10 years for each of the concerned, he

preferred an appeal, as also two co-accused who were convicted

by the Trial Court.

2. So far as the appellant is concerned his primary stand

before the Trial Court and the High Court was that the prosecutrix

having not identified him to be one of the persons who subjected

her to rape, his conviction cannot be maintained. The High Court

did not deal with this aspect but confirmed the conviction and

sentences as imposed by the Trial Court. In support of the learned

counsel for the appellant submitted that in the examination in chief

itself the victim (PW-6) stated as follows :-

‘I recognise the accused Raju and Pancham Present in the

Court. The witness after seeing the accused Jakir states that “I

do not recognise him because I have never been him”

3. Learned counsel for the State referred to letter parte of the

evidence where in generalised manner the role of the five accused

persons was described.

4. Both the Trial Court and the High Court ignored the

statement of the victim who in court categorically stated that she

did not recognise him as she had never seen him.

5. That being so the conviction so far as the present appellant

is concerned cannot be maintained. The appeal is allowed. The

bail warrant executed to give effect to the order of bail in terms of

the order of 10.2.2003 shall stand discharged.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
Exit mobile version