CF000005900 lil'l1||||||||||||||||H|H|l| EN ,THE HIGH \COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JAVALPU 70 c d 22 ears, £/o village Piparkhunta, PS Lalpur, at present Putaha collége, Jarhaathas civil LinesDistt.Bilas gr.‘ . . APPELAyg bhi§ i g ; O 117 hhediram/gon é’Bhurva Satnamifage y CR' . APPE AL NO. (N AIL) I J RONT ESPNDE y cA AL RIMmL APPEAL‘ UNDERSECTICN 374(2) OF THE CRIMIN PR OCED URE CODE . CONVI CT I ON : S EN TEN CE : Us 36 Ipc. c. R.l.f0r seVen yggrs.vr / 7 TEE SA TTE OF M.P. ~- u. Q \ L R. M F 99. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon‘bla Mr. Justice Prifinker Diwakan Criminal Appea! No. 1180 of 199i Mn Bhamf Rajput, counsel for the appgliqnt Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL far The STaTe/respondenf. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2} OF THE CODE w CRIiv‘INAL P§OCEDURE JUDGMENT ($QD32010) This appeal is directed against #he impugned‘judgmen‘r dafed 13,1Z.1991 passed by Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No‘ 120/1991 convici'ing The accusedlappellanf for #he offence punishabie under Section 376 of The Indian Penal Cddg and sentencing .him Tc undergo rigomus imprisonment far sgven years: 2. Case of fhe. prosecufion in brief is Thai on 2.6.1990 of about 11 pm FIR: (Ex.P-1) was iodggd by the prosecui'r'ix (PW—1), aged about 60 year's aileging in if Thai siie is a beggar and on ihai day at about 9 pm when she was returning to her daughter's house, near theopen field, the accused/appellant caught hoid of her, threw her on the filed and had committed forcibly sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that she also raised an alarm and asinobody was there, she could not be saved. She has specifically stated that she knows the‘ accused/appellant. i4._. A’ : APPELLANT Chhedimm son of Bhur'va Sa‘fnami (Ih Jaii) Versus RESPONDENT 5mm af Madhya Pmdesh 3.‘ So as To hold fa accused/appetiams guul’ry prosecufinn f ii has examined 05 wwnesses In support of Ws case: Sfatemc of The accused/appellam was also recorded under- Section 3g f of fhe Code of Criminal Procedure in which he depied'ghe' 4% g charge Ievelled against him and pleaded his innocenceiandv‘Efais impiicai‘ion in The case. This apart, wifnessmamefy i—igre’ndg' Kbmar‘ (DW-l) has aiso been examined by~fhe~defenc sapporf of ire case. V 4; After hearing the parties The trial Court has convicted : : t and sentenced the accused/appellant for the offences ast ‘ mentloned above “ ‘5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material § available on record including the judgment impugned: i 6. Counsel for the appellant submits. that present i540 case ~ l of false implication otherwise it is literallyimpossible thatga young man of 30-35 years would commit sexualj‘inte‘rcourse‘? t I with an old lady aged about 60 years. He aibmitsiihafimedical report EXP-6A of the prosecutrix does not alpPQf'tlh‘e ' prosecution case and; therefore, the conviction? of the 4 appeliant is not correctr Heefurthersubmits‘ 'that;‘at the relevant time the accused wasurickshaw puiien,‘ «Id-“therefore: ‘ possibility of false impiicatiomgpf the-accused/app‘ellan’tgcaanot be ruied out. He also submits that there are material' contradictions and omissions" ini the? statementa‘,:of, the J prosecution wttnesses.‘ , ‘ 1. On the other hand; counselfor.the.Stnteii—IQPOtiswgvtheé‘: ’: impugned judgment and submits‘that impugnedjudgmentgis in i a ix n ’ p e ‘ § e ‘ g submits That even If In the case of mp The InJury is ncf sine ’ qua none and therefor-e absence of InJury on The prosecumx z does no‘l’ help the accused appellant He further whmits That > present Is a case where one old beggar aged aboul 1‘ has been rawshed simply because there was no one $0 helgisuch; ‘ soCIally explowed persons and lhe act of the appellant r :~ such where no leniency can be shown to him He also wbrm that very prompt report (Ex P—1) has been lodged g‘ prosecutrlx md thus there Isino room for thisCou th‘é appellant. v x V8. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the , material available on record r on 9. Prosecutrux, (PW—,1) In». her court stata'nenthasguted p: _ that as herhusband is ill sincelast threeyearsby begging she f ls’marinating herself and her husband. she further states‘that é: on the date of incident when she w“ retuming'fyom;beggjng at about 9 pm, Vin the open field wh¢nfn9h§dYgW@ Tl‘GV‘egf": accused/appellant reached there, caught hold; ofi‘“h§l",":ithgew’ * her on the field and committed forcible sexugl intercourse 1‘ with her She also states that when she hue abtaed hmi the accused/appellant caught hold of her neck and after r commission of offence, she lodged the prompt report against theaccused/appellant, at 11, pm. §he£has alsoclarlfgled thgi' there were no houses hear the place oflinciéehlxll‘iihgtigwse‘ , examination the prosecutrix stood. firm,;and has‘not statedanyi such thing whichmax help the unwed/appellant's? §Tglemqit pf l " the prosecutrix (PW-11m been siuiy summed by $m93bai’ (PW—2) - daughter- of the prosecumix magma hggp’ergteeig‘f that, on the date cf incident the prosecumx has;"infqrme¢ hen? ‘ g ' 6 s t rt 7V l fhough sfafemen'r of fhis witness does not fully Tgliyfwvghefhef ”i sfatemenf offhe prosecutr-ix but fhe fact ranginsi fthqr ' prosecufrix has informed her fhaf she has beeh mpg? @yWh‘ accused/appellant Chhibul (PW-3)”- ’ neighbauwrw $ ‘ , prosecutr-ix has also supported the case~oh:~pr§sequ1'ion; saying fha? on ‘rhe date of incident when hewas sittinggin h' shop, prosecutr-ix came there and has informed that 'shehes been subjected to rape‘by the accused/appellant. Dar. Abhgjee‘i Sen (PW—4), who had done the medical examination‘*of;;th «hosed/appellant has found him capable-of 'performingsegtla' «intercourse and has stated that in the wgiedpacketane underwear was brought before him in whieh hes-foundidrigd whitish stains. Sushma‘ Tiwari (PW-5) istheinvestggat Officer and has supported the case: of-rw-thet’grasyuti Harendra Kumar (DW-l) in his statementr'has‘istuteg tint‘o the date of incident the accused/appellant; wass'rtting with him j“ aiong with other persons tiil 10-11 pm. a " zg.‘ i e~ > l 10. Minute scrutiny of the evidence ass adducedi bye ther ‘ witnesses makes it clear that on 2.6.1990xthe;prasecutr5;§ixiwas r; subjected tarape by the accused/appellant and‘ayeryprampt i report was lodged by the prosecutrix i.e. just gfte‘r‘two'hoursi of the incident and that there is no evidence on! irecond to" , disbelieve the statement :of the prosecutrix as*to why she hash falsely implicated the accused/appellant. Her. statement has been duly supported bySurajbai (PW-Z) and {Chhibul (Pl/W3), l » though there are ‘\ some minor contradtctionsxinfthe statement of these three witnesses“ but ‘thj “minor? contradiction does. not help the accused/dwel manner. I find no force in the argJment afethe e £ rs F” m ainv n-m l ‘} \ prosecumx has not been exqmmed no mJury whmsgever h been found m her report Ex P~6A the accused/hppgiia ’_ should beacqumed 11 V According to the considered opinion of ihts gem"? fh ewdence of fhe prosecufmx being compiefely m a ’12:“ ‘ The appeal 1hus has no subsfmce a? ail and accordmgly'l meefs The fare of dismissal Appetlqm‘ is reported ball his ball bonds stand canceHed He be dispatchr“? H V serve out The remaining pm of fhe senience tmpoged‘ugon‘hm Sd/- Pritinker DiWaker Judge w n e : _ f e ‘3“? §