(Q clixMiNaL MFLAAL w 4 ‘MFELLm: :/ La¢aragon of I‘unltram Teli, age J: ‘ /‘£In “a1$) H‘ w26 years remdent of village Kal‘alh . \' E S Bagbahara, 31$ trlct Ealp ur " i u ONDENT .n The State of M“; APPEAL/@”@_§E§i£;9mz&éz-gE. (‘P l FENAL PPOCQDURIA ,r d h , \ ~ vus. V , ers R T; t ’ HI6H COURT OF £HHATTI56A§H AT BILASPUR Sirggle Beqch : Hon'ble Mrwusfice Pr‘Hnker Diigaer Crimina Appeal No. o 1991 ‘i A m on T PPELLANT Lalcm s of Punh‘mm e§§ Versus he State of Madhya Pmesh T d RESNDT POEN i Shri H S Pa’rel counée! for “te appeiiam‘ Shm Vivek Sharma Pane! Lawer for The S’m‘r RIMINAL APPEAL UNDEk ECTIN 374 2 O H CD CRIMINAL PROCEDURE J U D 6 M ‘ .301) ai Ei$ direc‘red against T n ’enf dcn‘ed 3090121991 passed by Additional essiens Jdge, ahasdmund, Dis‘h‘ic‘r ,Rdipur in Sessians Tria NG.'‘1 he‘r'ebg carivictin The accused/appeliant or the ofenc unishcfbie uder‘ Section 376 of the Indian Penal Coe a M l 98/989' ‘wy g f fe p h ‘ d nd senfenéing him 1‘0 undero rigorous imprisonmem‘ for years. Be f f 1 8 bf 2.‘ rif ads o The case are fhaf on 29 1 198 of aou 115 m FIR (EXP 1) was lodged by fhe prosecufrix W 1)—‘ arrledj lady, aged gbouf 20 ears ailegjng In n‘ faf cm 28 11 88 1n befwee’n. 1—11 am when she was coiiecfin Th remains of addy cros accused/appellan’r came Tere dragged her f0 nearby f§eid threw er on The ground upfurned her sarree and pefhcoaf and affer removmg Th cloth which she was wearing on her prwafe parf as se was m mensfruaflon commlffed forCIble intercourse wlfh her Se alleges) That Bhagwanl (PW Z) Punmba! (PW 3) <31 Geefab ) e; ” (PW 4 had also seen The accused/appellant along With hen Sh l i t _ ’ J' i k l 4O f h y e “C SO F TE OE OF ' V E N T (110.20 This a§pe he impuged judgm S U g 5 p (P ‘m y h E 0 g e p p h h e“ h h al ur-The' aees fha‘t espite her resis’rance, she was sbjec‘red o’ rape by a 3. So as To The accusedapeian‘r guIH, msecuhon ‘ has exammed as many as wmnesees S‘m‘femem‘ of the accused/appeiianf was dso recarded under Sachem 313 of 're C h h d h hg? h pieaded ms Inen nd fis imcmd nocce a ae i‘m plicafioia‘ in ‘ Mid /pi y p 12 h ode of Criminal Prccadur‘e m whic e denie Te cares r 4‘. Afmr hearing The ar‘les e Tma! eum‘ as conwctel pT Th C h d and senTenced The accused/aeHam as menhone abov Hence fhls appeal x 5; Couris'el e appean' sumn‘s ‘fhaf presem Is a case of false tlmphcahan where on accoun’r cf phewous dispu’r be‘rween “the prosecumx and ”(he appellam‘ he has been faisei :mphca‘red by The prosecu‘l’mx He submrrs Thaf so- caHed eye wrfnessesnamely Bhagwam (PW—2 Punmbal (PW—3) & Geefaba (PW—4) have no? suppom‘ed The pmsecuhon case He fur‘Ther' submiTs ThaT medical reparT af The prasecuTr'Ix daes n suppor’r the presecuhon case and as per The same no InJur' whcdsoever‘ has been feund eITher‘ on The exfer‘nd or m‘ferna parT of The body of The prosecuTmx He furTher‘ submiTs ThaT mcxdenT is alieged Ta have Taken place abouT 20 yards away from The residem‘ of The prasecuTr'lx and Therefore ,E’T appears To be very unnaTur’al He furTher' submITs ThaT Though FSL reporT is posmve buT The same cannoT be accepTed because prosecuTr'Ix as well as The accused/appellanT were married persons and Therefohe presen of spermaTozoa The peTTlcoaT and an The underwear of The accused/app has no Slgmflcance He has laced sTr‘on reliance on Case. 7 1 ‘fr Hg d u ‘ " I f ‘rhe accused/appehnt. : fh Hr b ‘ 3’ e ‘ y ‘ i l i a y: ! i 6 pp d e ‘ ; o ell h p g T. ‘ (9 t ‘ ‘ ‘conwcfed for The offence punishable under gchon 37o of ’rhei :Indnon Pena! Code e 1' 1' : sTaTemem‘ of fhe proseeu’rrlx fhf she had no? een: a v faken ba’r or had changed her‘ clofhes no doub‘f can be pu? on - rfher‘ subml’r‘: fha’r on The da’re 9f ' e he proseco’rmx woe nof hf home k . ‘ ‘ s~fhaf Panchyaf wrmesses eefabéxl (PWA) have been dedared hos‘hle e cafegomcahy sfafed that af T m nf ' ‘ ' aden’r fhey had seen *‘rhe accusedlappelia " Wt inesses Judgment of The Supreme Court m he ma‘rfer- of Bgbhlshan v ESfare'of Maharashtra reporfed m (2007) SAR (Cm ) 86$ SC ; 3 m which If has been held fha’r if no mJur'y has been found on 1mg bgdo 9f mg prosecumx fhe accused/appellan? camo?‘ be " ther‘ hand ’c nse! for fhe respondenf/S‘mfe ,‘G bu ‘ v he, ' ' 7. I have hgard laamed cgunsel for The par’riesm‘ lengfh and perused The, mm‘erial availablg on recgrd inciudMg the judgment impugned. 8. Prosecufrix (PW—1) in her cour‘f s‘r’a’remenf has‘ cafegoricdlly sfafed Tha’r on ‘the dm‘e of incidenf when she had gen? f0 coHacf The remaim of pa dy crops acansed/gppellan‘r g * :came from behind dragged her ’ro nearby fleid fhr‘ew her on the ground upturned her sorree and pe‘mcoa’r and offer removmg fhe doth which she was wearma on her private par? as she was in ‘mensfrucrrion, commi’n‘ed forelbie mfercourse wifh her.‘ She has further sfoTed fhcn‘ when she cried, Bhagwani (PW—2i), ‘Punnibai (PW—3) & Gee’rabai (PW—4) reached fhere and fhen‘ accused fledgwoy'fmm The spof She sm’res Thaf accused/appeHan‘l’ was havmg axe m his hand She aiso sfm‘es Thcn‘ a’r The Time of commlsslon of offence fhe accused/appellant was wearmg red coiour underwear. She aiso states fha‘r she refurned back To her house and af That poim‘ of fime she was crying and then she narra‘ied The em‘ire. story to her mower—in law Sundariya Boi (PW—5) and +hereaffer she aiong wn‘h her mofher m law wenT To The house of The accused/appelhn’r where They met wn‘h hls mother and wife ' and when The enTire maidem‘ was narraTed To Them They sTarTed fighTIng WiTh Them. She sTaTes ThaT ThereafTer/ Hemulai came There ”and asked Them To go back by saying ThaT i 7 decision can be Taken in The PanchayaT. She sTaTes ThaT viilagei meeTing Was called, however, accused/appelianT did noT aTTe’nd' The same as he had fied away from The village and on account of The absence of The accused/appellan’r no demswn was Taken? In The PanchayaT The prosecuTrlx furTher sTaTes ThaT her 6? ‘brafher—in—law was asked *0 cal! her husband who had gone To ’ fhe ofher‘ vi’imge and on fhe naxT mcming her husband came and fhen‘ FIR (EXP-1) was lodged. Ia her cross-examincn‘ion - prosecufléix (PW—1) sfocd very firm and has ncn‘ devim‘ed fmm her smfe‘mem‘. 9. ‘ Bhdgwani (PW—2), Punnibai (PW—3) & 6eefabai (PWA), 5 w who hadf reached fhe spo’r affer‘hear‘ing The cries of The prosecuff'ix and had seen the incident, fhough have no? Vsuppor'red the prosecutionT'case buf a!! of Them have cafegar-ic‘any staffed That when The pmsecuTrix was collec‘ring , The remains of paddy crops, accused/appeHanT reached on The same field Sundariya Bai (PW—5) - maTher—in-!aw cf The z prosecuTrlx has supporTed The sTaTemenT of The prasecuTrix and has caTegorIcaHy sTaTed ThaT an The daTe 0f mcxdenT The prosecuTrlx came To her and aT ThaT pomT of Time she was crymg and Then she narraTed The enTlre incidenT To her Lopchand (PW-6) - PanchayaT WiTness has also supporTed The prosecuTion case by saying ThaT on The compiamT of The prosecuTrix, The PancyayaT was caHed however, no decision ‘couid be’ETaken Bhukanlai (PW—7) — anoTher PanchayaT wiTness has also supporTed The case of The prosecuTion by making caTegorlcal sTaTemenT ThaT prosecuTrm had mformed hTm ThaT she was sub IecTed To rape by The accused/appeHanT Hemuram (PW 8) has sTaTed TheT an The daTe of InCIdenT he saw The r prosecuTrix and her moTher—gn iaw m The house of The y accused/appeHanT The accssed was noT There and The* prosecuTrix was crying He furTher sTaTes ThaT The prosecuTrIx had informed him abauT The meidenT and Then he had asked Them To go and noTTo fighT a . . \ 10. Dr; Padmava’fi Pandey (PW-9) who‘had examinad The 'pr‘osecufr‘ix vide EXP-5 has found no exfema! or inferna! injury cn‘ fhe body of The prosecm‘r'ix, however, she has sTa'red Tha‘r a-‘r The. flime of examination, The. pmsacu‘rrix was having liter ‘ period, she has furfherisfa‘ied‘fha'i o sealed pei‘iicoa’r was sent , To her and in The said peh‘icoo‘r she had founo white spot and ' the said pettioom‘ was ,sen’r for The chemical exomina‘rion. i Heer‘ur'aifm Ne‘réom (PW—10) is fhe pm‘war-i, who had prepor‘ed‘ihe spot mdp ExiP—7.‘ R.B.S; Porihar' (PW—11) ’ The Inves’rigoi’ion - Officer has supporied the case of ’rhe prosecution. Dr. C.S. Mishm (PW—12) whe 'had examined The accusedfappellan‘r has V given his reporT'Ex.P-4 has sTaTed ThaT accused was capable of performing sexual? infercourse. He fur-fher' sfm‘es That underwear of The accusedlappeiianT was senT for The chemicai‘ i examinaTion and in The same he found The'spoT which was ‘ marked iby him FSL reporT EXP 14 is posmve and on The ' peTTicoaT of The prosecuTrix as weil as on underwear of The, " accused/appellan’r spermaTozoa has been found 1 11. ITiis relevanT To menTion her ThaT as per The sTaTemenT V ' of The p‘rosec‘uTrix, when she was being subjecTed To rape by i The accused/appeil’anf The aCcused was wearing read coiour underwear and ‘the said r'ed coiour underwear was seized Vide « ’ ‘ExP 9 and The same was senT for chemical exarmnaTion in i , which spermaTozoa was found i . 12. Accordma To fhe consudered opinion of This Court The ewdence of The prosecuTrix being compleTely TrusTworThy inspires fuli confidence and noThing has been broughT on record by The defence To discrediT or discard The same . udgment as cite b ccunse or The eti‘rioner' iso no e! To him because m Te sai case exce‘r sTm‘emen’r o prosecuTr‘Ix Tere was no oTher' ewdence an even perma’rozoa was no? oun bu‘r m fhe case m han acts ar n'hr'el differem‘ were fher‘e 1s suffICIenT ewence avaia § io record To oonfnm fhe conwctlon of rhe ad/ppeilam‘. ‘ 13 J d y l f p f ; hp h d p f The ‘ h d The ‘s fd d f e ’ 'ey h d lble n ‘ ’ ccusea hze appeal Thus has no substance a’r a and accoringly n . s h f meef Te a T b phd ‘ s g hlm x T n d ‘ f dismissal ApelanT ls reporTe To be o ait his baTI bonds sTand cancelled He be dlsaTce To Jail To erve ouT The remainin par'T of The senTence Imposed upon — Pritinker Diwaker Judge i ‘4 o pl d n l ‘ l Sd/ l ‘ sre