by SWIM/WM r. J—rg‘ R. t9 D.R. (J) " ‘ I M‘wsm‘tte .......... " r '3 m )ag‘w§% W IN THE HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE AT N CRIMINAL AI?PEAL No.4 O) OF 2006 m APPELLANT (IN JNL) DINESH KUMAR SONKAR S/o Shn’ Kejuram <§ Kejuram Sonkar, Aged about 22 years; RID Gram Kugmund, Go? V 472 Thana — Arang. Disit: Raipuqcs.) ?%:L"’ VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh: through Disirict Magistrate. Raipur, Dian Raipur (CG). " AE3FELLARI? §E$§i3¥ihm éa’z S1, Ax 3k Swaf Kar m the abneHaV‘ ‘§’m Wewm QW. D MAL $3.35 \v In. 3n \Jv h m‘xi Ewi $Fi§T CRWIW e cf Chhaitiwam Qi'w‘ \I’,cgesh Pandey ommse? fgr Advocaie andeW$za€a w? § xgv 5m; r: Judqe l; *hg *he CG f .173 gwisu MD “4/7 Case a"? ‘e areSé‘? ,gy‘ 1 2W? H031 f1bl$ g 5mg mm :R‘aa’ L ‘ muse when she wigs aéi 33mm: a mh ”er She has mvff‘ar awesed “a: a?” @ n. A ; a’ml ¢PP$ u a m+ ‘ 27d “c i3 ‘ihai an ZS‘D322’3Q‘5 HR Ex. Pu2 aneti aumh :3 yaaw aweu ad’imgi$a“+ 9 term: in‘m her mmi%ied hm? om mmr m‘w‘ a"; vrsmmgk Agpagr Na. am a? 33% :Ir‘gw Kamar Sankgi’ w RbUS Lam} T9? f$$§3 IZN § 37”“ *- bv§ c i) {W J” s,e ‘ defy: MTG}; Raw? in cMSmI ameimbt m n9 of‘¢= n z l I (j) mQ A, s mp 136nme'wt * r am yaar ma» LyC? t judgment aad gr ,_ F U emmg him is una‘erga r§gom 9f ; s‘ 5A3GE, in d$fauii cf I i a E‘” 4a mZB‘ u L s; I r c wzag 3e 55%;9 paw. arm“ -’er‘ h a Dana! awt mae‘mc waQ a:$o hag refwed i0 marr‘v be «:é ‘J m v t": 1" WW3$$QL takemen HEGH CGURT OF 6%H&??‘E$@§RH a? E1§L£$FL§R wan Mg» wstma P € £6 ’v ~' Cf mghteneg gnd ihgraatter cwha ¢ g g“? r3 wmihw' 9n, imtercawse with her en Wee accaaéana ”z ?* aiimra‘mem c She has further saw-G mat when aha b$came 1¢;’xgg“;anf $71: to the ' a reguegi the acauaed!agpe£%am fef k. refwea‘ by hw and iherefez‘e ‘ e major? w ‘ -2, accased/appeiiant was afsa reserde’d under secticn 313 of the Cede of Crimiraai Precedure in which. he denied the charge isveEed agaimt him and pteaded ms :nr‘zocence and fa 3e p cafr§an m ihe case. mks mw cw Chaiiram (DVM) has aiso be$m examined by the ‘jefence m suapc—ré {if %f3 Oa$e. 4. Attel marmg tne pa A ”*9 ma! mm. hae sonvictee and eenienced “we accusewapge¥aam as meniioned abeve. 5. Heam uo‘mee m me pames ard nemsed t‘w = ateWi ava§§able am {ecord incéwjing the jweu WF+ meugae’ 6. Ceunsei forthe accusedfappeEianteebmiis. xez’nere 2m inm’dinete deiay of eight maraths in iadgéng the FER and the seki W “v “"3 n0 been expiained by the pmsecution. He furiher submits em? ereeem 5e e ceee ef faise impiication and thefe is n0 EegeéEy edmiseibie evidence en reccsmi to Show that on me date a? comméssion 9‘ wfehce *f‘e nroeecsifrw wee beiaw 16 years of age. 7. On ihe other hand, i has been az'gued by the ssunee% fer the {espondent/3tate $hat there is eneugh matea'iai avei§abie can recerd om , which bas%s it can be estabiished that cm the date cf cemmieeien cf effence the age ef ihe presecuérix was begew 15 years, He feri'ner submfts met m? the first time the erosecutrix was subgected t0 repe by fhe accusedfeppeltem aceEnsf her wish end therefore even if ft is heéd we? the oreeecut’lx wee wager *he Meme unx’iei eeeticn ’WS QDL is wade ee’r againet the accusewapeaiam. 8. ProsecutrEx (PW-23 I he? eevrf s+efewer2 we eietee ‘?r~‘ in €he A ad oi prevmus year at about 14 nor‘n wnew she was r‘emmg reed ‘ her nouee, the accused/appeiiant came there m a drueken cendiikm caught held ei" her hand ahd cemmittee feroibie sexua1 ihiereearee with her. She has furiha eiated éhet after cemm3€ting aihe effeeee the eccueed’eppe Ian? had tbre ?enee he? eexzne the; :f she with e‘ieeieee érhe moment k0 anyene she wouid be Wee. she hae further eeetee the? en eoceuni er’ the thfeai 01‘ 31%; she hep: siéehfc. $he has further sta‘ied :het 1 thereafter for about 4-5 times the eeeusedfepeei‘ “1+ cewe xe he? hwee and committed torcibie sexual interceurse \Mth er es ree :t e? whvch em ~37’ became pregnant. She fmhar state$ that she had mfgrmed the accusedfappe§iant abeut her pregnancy and wheiw n0 rasparwe was givgn by him, she disclosed i’ne incident ta her parents thereaf$er a Panchaya‘i meeiéng was canvened aad F1}? Exe P—2 was meged‘ £31 he; erase- examination ihe prosecutrix remained vea’y firm and she has {eiterated her version 0f being subgected t0 forcibie sexua! interceurse by the accused/'appeiiant. The staiement of ihe mosecutrix has been du§y supported by Chaib’am {PW—4) —‘fathe{ of tne prosecutrix and he has sia'ted that the prosecutrix was abem 13 years e£d at the time sf incident. Desrath Yadav (PW-7} - One of he memisers a? r‘ae $encha‘e‘ i as s ted in e m the Penchaya? m: ,mg ,t was Iseiesed bv the pmeeeviw a? eke ’as carryina areowency e: elgni monies i’amugn “1e aemsedx’epeeiiaet and :he sec? fact was admitied 0y the aecused/epeeiiem. am a siaiemeni fies in i been made by Biehat {PW-9):, anether wiiness ef the Fae iai meeéfm. 9. in respect o? age ef the mosecuii'ix e' femer Lhai‘ram (DW- e made a very caiegoricai statement that ehe wee abeut 14 veei's raid ai iee time cf incideni and he was eiso eredueed .‘he rmrk sneet of i e prosecuirix Ex. P-S m which me date cf birth. ef the proseeut;ix has been recordee‘ as 21.07.1gg2 whereas PW-M — i3aiwei'i ef the viiiege has preduced the copy of the Petweri Register Ex. P44 in which the date 0t birth of the presecutrix has been recorded as {12.10.3Q89. Of cauree there is scme discrepancy in reseect of the exact date at aim ef the preeecutttx but evert it both the dates are taken inte censideration, it becemes apparent from the reeord that on; the state ef cemmissie i et the etieh e the nreeectttrix was much iess tear} 16 veers at age Dr Smt. £3 Beee (PW- 15) Who oad examined ti‘e prosewtrix m sarag I: rre oi‘ her statement has stated that the preeecutrix is aged aeout i3 years 10. Coasidering entire evidence as adduceri by the prosecutieni this Court is of the censidered epinier‘a that at the ttme at commiseiee at offence the ercseoutrix was a mihor giri and she wee subjeeted to iorctbte sexuai interceurse try the acousediappeitant. Etien otherwtse etsa trom they statement ct prosecutrix it is apparent that fer the first time she was subjected to sexuai intercourse by the eccueeefeppeiiant forcibty ‘eithetit, her consent and therefore the conviction of the aocesed/aceeiiant tinder r ,‘L’u’ sectmn $76 IPC is strict€y in accordance with §aw anci the arguments as advanced on behaEf‘ of the appeiEants are 0f no he§p to the accusedi‘appeQEant. H. 1n the resuit there is n0 subsianoe in appeaL §t is Eiabée t9 be dismissed and is dismissed accerdingiy. is 7 Sdl- ‘ Pritinker Diwakerr Judge