•^ •^- ^ &'ng}e fCrWn^ M-JMJU£tL£2^I»SfJ^lili_PRAOE3H_ AT O ABALPUR. Crlgiinal App sa 1 No. ^ ^f of 1993, APpCLLANT; Gyan Narayan S/o Mahadeo Devangan agsd about 28 ysars,R/o Pathraguda^ Police Statlon Kotuall 3a-gd8lpu4 Dlstt. B8sta<(rf!.P.5., VERSUS RESPONDENTt The Ststs of Ffl.P./ ^3j €P ; ^4 ^ ^I^ ^ al_ , a 1 -3^3. ^e^ ^PLE^-il^^R^LLI2N»^2il2l-^LJ^^^^^ OF CRII'1_INfl_L_ PROCEDIIRE BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.07 11:57:23 +0530 HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 1993. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Gyan Narayan S/o Mahadeo Devangan State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Pallav Mishra counsel for appellant. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for respondenVState. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (21 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (12.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.8.1993 passed by Additional Special Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Sessions Trial Case No. 151/1989 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.11.1988 at about 11.30 a.m. FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix alleging that on that day at about 8.30 a.m. when she was in her house along with her children, accused/appellant came there, asked about her husband and when she told him that her husband had gone to his workplace, he asked her children to get out of the house, thereafter he closed the doors from inside, threw her on the bed and despite her resistance tried to insert his penis into her private part after removing his towel and underwear. Meanwhile, she could lay hand on the blade kept on the shelf and caused injury on his penis. According to the prosecutrix, had she not caused injury to the appeilant on his penis, he would have subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. She has stated that accused had also requested her not to disclose the matter to anyone. Immediately thereafter, she rushed to her -2- neighbor Kamli Bai (PW-3) and narrated the incident to her and then after calling her husband the report was lodged. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses in support of. its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offences as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that a very improbable story has been put forth by the prosecutrix and that from her conduct itself it manifestly appears to be a case of consent and as someone might have seen both, the appellant and the prosecutrix in a compromising position; the report has been lodged by her. He submits that the prosecutrix had refused for her medical examination which goes to show that she was a consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that had the prosecutrix not got blade and caused injury to the accused/appellant, she would have been definitely subjected to sexual intercourse. 8. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has categorically stated that on the date of incident when her husband had gone to his workplace, she was in the house along with her two children and immediately after his departure, accused/appellant had come to her house, asked about the whereabouts of her husband and on coming to know about his being on duty, he asked her children to get outside the house, closed the door from inside and despite the resistance offered by her, he took her to the other room, removed his underwear and towel, upturned her sari and petticoat and while he was trying to -s— insert his penis into her private part,she could lay hand on the blade kept in the shelf and caused injury to his penis. She has stated that the accused/appellant had requested her with folded hands not to disclose the matter to anyone. Thereafter, she went to her neighbour Kamli Bai (PW-2) and narrated the entire incident to her. In cross examination also she has not stated anything new and remained firm to what has been stated by her in the examination in chief. Premlal (PW-2) - the husband of the prosecutrix has stated that when he came back to his house, the entire story was told to him by the prosecutrix. Kamli Bai (PW-3) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. However, she has admitted that at about 9 a.m. the prosecutrix had come to her and asked her to call her husband. C.S. Netam (PW-4) who has investigated the matter has also supported the case of the prosecution. Dr. M.H. Rijwi (Pw-5) who had medically examined the accused/appellant vide his report Ex. P-6, opined that injuries sustained by him on his penis could have been caused with blade and the duration of the same was 3-4 days thereto. 9. Statement of the prosecutrix which has been duly supported by the medical evidence of the accused/appellant appears to be quite trustworthy to arrive at the conclusion that the accused/appellant had made an effort to ravish her and had she not resisted the same, may be, by causing injury to his penis, he would have succeeded in his aim. Nothing has been brought on record to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix and take a view contrary to that of the Court below. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such. Judgment impugned convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as above is affirmed. 10. Appellant is reported to on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. He be sent to jail forthwith to serve out the remaining part ofthe sentence imposed on him. \ sdj^. pritinkerDiwaker Judge r?r