x \r MMa'w Wh'-kq‘ whwu m v v H HIGH COURT OF CHI CRIMINAL APPI APPELLANT » . ‘ ‘ , r IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR {AL NO 1107 OF 2004 Shivnath Ram S/o Aflnder Ram, aged about 4O years; occupation ‘ cultivation, resident of Village Vasudevpur, Police Chowki Duldula District Jashpur (CG) : 61 IERSUS The State'of Chhattisgarh Through the District Magistrate, Jashpur (C.G.) 1&s’ponnp5m ' Present: Mr. Sunil sahu, couns‘ Mr. Neeraj Mehta, P.L. ORAL . (4th Dhirendra Mishra, J This appeal is din conviction and order of sen S.’T.No. . 111/04 whereby lc Jéshpur has convicted the the IPC and sentenced him tcted against the judgment of tence dated 13.12.2004 passed in arnedv Additional Sessions Judge, appellant under Section 376(1) of :0 undergo R.I. for seven years, pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ — and in default Qf payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for sixrnonths. %ww;”mr.,s.‘i.r :. e1 for the appellant. for the State/respondent. JUDGMENT October 2007) l.l , mv . , . . V l w 7,‘ W»N}MmwwwmmmmN.mTa,w‘waw”, (V ;a w u MM " charge sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, 'Jashpur and the same was received on transfer'for trial by the i learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3. -' During trial the pr'osr-eution examined x12 Witnesses in all. Thereafter, statement o theaccused was recorded under o ' a Section 313 0f the‘Cr.P.C. herein he pleaded innocence and stated that he had’gone to t e forest where a bear ran after him Aand to saye his life he ran. e did not chase them and he did nothing. However, learned ial Court afterrhearing counsel for t, the respective parties, conv cte‘d and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph of this judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix is a girl of 17 y ars. Her version does not inspire confidence as from hermed cal examination report of Ex.P/ 1 1 it would be evident that s e did not sustain any external or internal injury over her pers n. There is evidence available on record rwhich shows that there is animosity between the members of the prosecutr ’s community and the Hindus, neighbourers of the prose utrix had gone to the house of appellant and beat Shivnat and his father and on account of above animosity, the appell nt has been falsely framed in the above offence. It is furt er argued that the prosecution witnesses are relatives of t e prosecutrix and no independent witness has been examined. , rrwj , aw fr.” www—u ’hww iim¥‘i*ij'p“|mpwc-vn<u.v State/respondent supports impugned judgment of the trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the partles and perused the 1mpugned Judgr 1ent as also the ev1dence avallable on record t- 7. Conv1ctlon of the appellant 1s based on the statements of [the prosecutrlx (PW-1) Aruna Toppo (PW 2) and also based on the statement of Matlyas Kerketta (PW-3) who 1s father of the prosecutrix. u g:aw- z‘ 8. PW—l the prosecutrix has stated that on the date of 'she along with her friends had gone to the forest for collecting vegetables. In the afternoon they met the accused, Who asked them from where they were bringing vegetables and after incident at about 10.00 p.r.‘1. their reply, he came behind them for a distance. Thereafter, Ihe started running towards them. Out of fear she and her two friends Aruna Toppo and Aalpana Kujur started running in dif erent direction. While running the prosecutriX fell on the grou d as her one leg was entangled in creepers. The accused thre her on the ground, tore her skirt and took out her underwe r and forcibly raped her. After committing rape he asked her to sleep with him again and when she started running, er skirt fell in the forest. HovKever, rmwvw“.mwwim‘m‘ "a " ‘ t m'mmyfg‘a g mm Wm $Wm On the '- other ha learned Mwwrm mi'w m w‘mmr. ”wm. , ‘rafter. rThe accused talked to‘ tham and thercafter, he ran towards them ‘as a result 0f which they \ran in different directions.~‘ The accused‘initially ran after them, however, thereafter‘he ran after the-Prosecutrix. After coming out of the forest they waited for} the ':prosecutrix for "some time and V ;eturned inside the forestto idok for the prosecutrix where they 'foun‘d her coming from th forest side weeping. She (the prosecutriX) narrated the ' cident to them. Similar is the statement ‘of :Matiyas Kerket a, father of the prOsecutriX (PW-3) who has stated that aft‘er r turning from forest, her daughter informed him that the accu ed had chased her with axe and jnee (PW—7) Who examined the prosecutrix and gave report of EX.P/ 11 has stated that there was no injury over herpriv te parts except a bruise mark of size of 2 inches on her dors 1 aspect of right thigh, there was an old rupture of hymen, he vagina admitted one finger easily, there was no fresh sign of ture of hymenand she did not complain pain on internal e amination and no definite opinion about rape can be given. 10. So far as argument o learned counsel, for the appellant that absence of injury over erson of the prosecutrix and the accused negates allegation o rape, is concerned, the statement of prosecutrix cannot be dis arded simply because her version is not corroborated by the dical evidence particularly when there is evidence available n record that she is a girl Rf 17 thereafter raped her. Dr. a‘Iwu v ‘ W" v. a p e I ‘years With 01d rupture of hy 1 law that conviction can be fc the prosecutrix Where the f ‘ Court. ‘I'n' the instaht’casen: ‘ thé forégoihg'paragraphs,'t 1' Vimpe‘ach credibility of the p ‘ corroborated by the statem a‘c'comp'a'n'iedi her at the time aéee’p'ted hi§ presence at the false implication suggestec examination of the Witness: basis of which the prosec h honour of the prosecutrix. that he has been falsely im the two communities, canno 11. On the basis of afor considered opinion that con Court is based on proper on record and the same d Court. v 12. In the result, the ap liable to be dismissed and is men. It is well settled principle of unded on the solitary testimony of same inspires confidence of the as has already been pointed out in he defence has not’ been able to tosecuti‘ix and her version is duly jents of Aruna Toppo (PW—2) who of incident. The appellant has also place of occurrence and reason for by the defence in the cross- s is not of such a nature, on the rix or her parents would involve erefore, defence of the appellant licated because of rivalry between be accepted. id discussion, this Court is of the iction of the appellant by the trial eciation of the evidence available not call for interference by this a. ay:w b i u. eal being devoid of substance is accordingly, dismissbeg.x é‘i‘wrm-ul ‘W‘wn ’iwNMv ‘ kTrmium- i"weiM‘*h:év':n- W‘ ‘ WM ‘ e a s o r m