G GR.M&DE&L No. 219; 01" 1990. n... EN THE HIGE COUR'l‘ OF MAHHYA PEWESE‘I : i‘aal‘ ‘mtBa’RLPUR. : Khamé£;al Sahu s/o Ramulal $ahu, aged 28 years, Agriculturis$§ R/c Village: ?arsada Teli, P.S. Kharora, Distriat: Raipur,M.P. V ‘ ’ Vs. The gta‘cé of M-P. . a . . gg’wPONDENL‘ CR.APPEAL Uzs. 374(2) OF THE CR.?.C. ceNVIurmN; U/Isc 376 IPC. bmmlggg: R.I. for five years. " I Qr t ‘ vx.V,‘m$;,.%_mu:~‘x » > V ;r~ ; r~~ r» ""’ " k ’ \ . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 1990 APPELLANT Khamanlal Sahu VERSUS This appeal Is dlrected against the Judgment and order dated 8 5 1990 passed by Addmonal SeSSIons Judge Ralpur In Sessmns Trlal No. 27/1989 conVIctmg the accused/appellant for the offence punishable underSections 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.10.1988 at about 10.20 a.m. FIR Ex. P-15 was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-11) aged about 2O years alleging that on 26 'lO 1989 when she had gone to the field accused/appellant came there caught hold of her hand and despite her protest he threw her on the ground and committed forcrble sexual intercourse With her lt is alleged that on - account of her being thrown on the ground, she had sustained injuries on her body. After investigation, challanifwas filed by the police under Section 376 IPC and the appellant was prosecuted accordingly. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 15 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 as mentioned above. v-x l 9 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused te material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsei for the appellant submits that in the present case the appellant has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix as‘lshewas cutting the grass from his field and he had refused her to do so. He submits that the medical report does not support the case of the prosecution and no injury on her person was noticed by the doctor who had medically examined her. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports theJudgment impugned and submits that the report of the incident was lodged very promptly and that the statement of the prosecutrix is duly supported by Kejuram and Manglu (PW-Q and PW-g respectively) who have stated that they had seen the accused/appellant in the field where the incident is said to have taken place. He submits that even the accused/appellant has admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was present on the spot. 8. Prosecutrix (PW—11) has stated that on the date of incident she had gone to the field of one Ramu to collect grass for feeding the cattle. She has stated that the accused/appellant reached there, asked for sexual favour and when she abused him, he threw her on the ground andtlcommitted forcible intercourse with her. She has stated that as her mouth was gagged by the accused/appellant, she could not raise her voice. While coming back, omthe way she met i Keju and Manglu and after reaching home she narrated the incident to her father. Statement of the prosecutrix is duly supported by Tejram (PW—1) who has stated that on the date of incident when he had gone to the field for grazing the cattle, there he saw the accused/appellant and the prosecutrix and there was some dispute between them. Kejuramf'x(PW—2) has stated that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix. had informed him that the accused/appellant had caught’hold of her hand. Thereafter, the Panchayat meeting was called in which father of the accused/appellant was called but he did not attend the same. h : ‘ ‘ ‘ i ” i @ However, the meeting was attended by the accused/appenant where he denied the offence alleged to have been committed by him. This witness has stated that when no decision was taken in the said Panchayat, the report was lodged. Manglu (PW—3) has supported the case of the prosecution and stated that when he was goin‘g towards the culvert to take bath‘ he met the prosecutrix who was weeping and on being asked by him she informed him that the accused/appellant had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. He has also supported the factum of Panchayat meeting being ca‘lled in the village Dhanesh Ram (PW-5) — the father of the prosecutnx has stated In’hls eVIdence that when the prosecutrlx returned from the field she was weeping and on being asked she disclosed the inCIdent to him. This Witness has also supported the factum of Panchayat meeting being called in the village and stated that when no decision was taken in the said meeting, the report was lodged. It is true that Kejuram (PW—2) and Asharam (PW-13) have not supported the case of the prosecution but they have not stated anything in favour of the accused/appellant also. Moreover, the accused/appellant himself has stated that on the date of incident he was with the prosecutrix in the field and had asked her not to cut grass from the field G D Kosle (PW 15) the investigating officer has also supported the case of the prosecution 9. Minute examination of the evidence available on record ; reveals that the version of the prosecutrlx that while she was in the field the accused/appellant came there and cg‘mmitted forcible sexual intercourse with ‘he'r, appears to be fully trustworthy and inspires full confidence of this Court. The judgment impugned being well founded does not need any interference in this appeal. _.3 __ 10. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Amused/appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand ’ cancelled. He be sent to jail forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence imposed on him. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge