HIGH COURT OF CHHATTBGARH : BILASPUE CEIMINAL EEVBION No. 497 OF 2002 AppUcant Non-applicants Sint. AnjaniBaiW/o Amitdas, aged about 28 years, Caste- Pamka/ R/o ViUage- Puta, P.S. Lakhanpur, Tehsil- Atnbikapur, Uistdct- Sai'guja ( C.G.). -Versus- 1. Saha Das @ Sah Das S/o Nathii Das, aged •) about 22 years, Occupation-Agricultiirist, R/o ViUage- Puta, Police Station-Lakhanpttr, District- Suiguja (C.G.). 2. State of Chhattisgaih Throu.gh PoUce Statlon Lakhanpttr, District- Szu-guja (C.G.). AppUcant by Shri Ashok Dixit, Advocate. Statc by Miss Shanmla Singhai, Dcputy Covt. Advocatc. ORDER This order of the Coui't is passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. C. Bhadoo. 1. This aiminal levision has been prefeired by Siat. Anjani Bai being aggfleved by llie judgnienl passed by the Tlliid Additional Sesslons Judge, Ambikapur m Sessions Trial No. 365/2001 dated 21.8.2002 by whichleamed Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the non-applicant No.l yahadas @ Sahdas of the charges pimishable tmder section 341 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Leamed counsel for the appUcant submits that as tfae State has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment of acquif±al,tfaerefoie the piosecutrix has flled this revision. 3. The relevant facts for the disposal of this cinninal levision aie that on 21»tSeptember 2001 at about 1 p.m. in the ^diUage-Futa /' 6. when the prosecutrix was conimg froin Anganwadi, tfae accused inet her in the wav and took her in the house of Sonia Bai and conmatted rape on her against her wffl. Thereafter she returned to her house and disclosed this fact to Rajkumari becaiise at fhat ttme her husband was not at residence, 2 to 4 days afteT tfais inddent wlien hsr Titisband AmiT Das rehimed from ChirmiTi then she disclosed the fact to her husba.nd and thereafter she along with her husband went to the police out post Udaipur and lodgcd thc rcport. Upon this thc policc rcgistcrcd a casc under section 376 and 341 bf the Indian Penal Code and aftei' (-•onipletioii of fhe tnvestigation fUed chaTge sheet against the accused/non-applicaiit No.l. Leamed Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against. the accused, wlio denied the diarges and prayed for trial. TIie prosecution in order to prove the charges adduced evidence. ^•fif-il&^e^.-^" The cii.idpncc of the acciised was recorded under section 313 of the Crumnal Procedzu-e Code. After heaiing the aigiunents of lcaincd PubMc ProsccutoT and lcamcd coimscl foi tfac accuscd leamed Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused froin llie diarges. I have heaid arguinents of Shri Ashok DIxit, leamed coimsel foi fhe applicant/prosecutrix and Miss Shanmla Singhai, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for tfae State, and perused tfae record. Leamed trial Coiirt reached to the conclusion that there are ('ontradK'tioTis in the statements of the prosecutaix and Tier hiisbcmd. More over ivitness Rajkumari has not supported the case of the prosecution, the offence is said to have been contmitted on 21*' September 2001 whereas the report was lodged on 28*h September, 2001 i.e. wlfh the 7 days delay, the report was not lodged on fhe same day even after comttig ofher husband but it was lodged 2-4 days aftei commg of hei husband, and inore over the lady Dr. Smt. Asha Bansal has also not given definite opinion about the intercotirse urjtli fhe prosecutnx on tfae date of the inddent, therefore the trial Cowt reached to ttie conclusion ihat the statement of tihe prosecufaTX and hcr hiisband docs not inspirc confidcncc as such thc accused has been acquitted. 7. I have peiused fhe judginent of the trial Court, the evidence uf the iritnesses. If we look at the statanent of fhe prosecutrix Anjani. (PW 5) she has said that the mddent of rape was one year prior to her statement, whereas her husband Amirclas has said that the inddent is 2 years prioi to the date of the statement. Moie ovei tfae proseciitrix has stated that she did not file any written report, whereas she stated that Ae signature on Ex.P/5 MC hcr only. Ex.P/5 is a written and typcd rcpoit, which was submitted to the police station zmder the signataue of llie prosecuLrix, whereas she lolaUy demed tliis lacl. Tlie prosecutrix has sald m her statement that when the rape was coinmitted on her, she did not disclose ttus fact to anyone else and when she came to hei house she disclosed to Rajtemari, and aftei 2 to 4 days of the date of inddent, her husband came w1io was not at tTie residence on tlie date of mcideTif she disdosed this fact to her hlisband on his retum to hoine and even thereafter they waited 2-4 days and thereafter went to 4 ?"\-^ ^-^-±.-!.i:;?»i-;'''Er\. lodge the report. No reason or explanatioit was given for not lodging fhe report foi 7 days. Even Rajkuinari (PW 6) has not supported the statement of the prosecutrix and she has sald that 6 -7 months back she went for vaccmation of her daughter, she did not know about the inddent witfa Anjani Bai. Anjani Bai liad not gone for vacdnatioTi of HOT daugliter. This witness 1ias been dedared hostile, wheieas tfae prosecuhax has said that she had gone to Anganbadi for havtng vaccination for the daughter of Rajkumari and n?hcn shc was rcttumiig with a girl who was 7 yeai-s old, fhe accused caught hold of her and commiUed rape. She has furthei said that when the accusetl tuols. her iiiside ttie loom. fhe daughter of Rajkumari was m her lap. She further sald that she did not receive aiiy injiuy diu'mg the intercowse, onj.y bangles were broken, she Aas not said that she taised. any hue and ay when the accused had coimmtted rape against her waU.. In the cross examination Amirdas has sald that 2-3 ttmes com.plaints were aiade by his wife agatnst the accused and there arc 2-3 cascs pcnding against ihc accuscd on thc coBiplaints inade by his wife. The prosecutrix has admitted that it is true lliat Uie accused is her lirollier-in-law, she knows Uie biollier of ^.< ^ the accused Ravldas and m h^ marriage she had gone to the house of the acciised but she has denied tfae suggestion that fhe accused Sahadas gave her food with his han<^in that mariiage, she has also demed the suggestion that on tMs count a qiiaMel iy— took place. with the wife. of Sahadas ai\d hvf. Tn view of these reasons assigned for not believing the statements of fhe prosecutrix, and in view of the conb-adictions ni tlie statements 5 r^\. of husband and wife both aiid as Rajkumari has not suppoited the version of fhe piosecutrix, the report was lodged wifh 7 days delay for which no reasonable explanation has been given, I am of the opmion that tfae findmg of fhe trial Cozut is not perverse or not contrary to the evidence avaflable on record. Therefore T have no reason to differ froTn tihe condusioTis arid reasons for acqtuttmg the accused of the charges; therefore the judgment of the trial Couit is sustained. Accofdmgly, this cruiunal icvision has no forcc, it 1s without any niei'it, which is Uable to be and is disinissed. _ L.C.B^000 judge iWSB'SgtiaiSt.