ar- i.^r ^<^ ^s w tO o' BEROI^ 're&HQNSI.^ifiCrffiGOOR'E QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPORiC.GA CRQaBiKL&S» m.liQ^S^) /2006 APPELLANT INJAIL ^o^ ss^^i^ . 1^">1 ^vs^' , ^M <IIL.J^ '5»aAGd?plshcr<^ — d^fcil ISanaar Pandey, son pf Late S&ri Oafcar Prasad Pandey A^d abQ'ufSOjFears, occupatton tteacher, resident of village Dhamtari, Distt. Bshamtari<G.G.|t VESSU& Stateof Chhattis^rh, tfarough — ttie PoUce Statian - City KpfBFati, BIiamtari»Distt:DIiaintari^(G.<3.) RESPONDENT 33'.^2^0FTHEeOD@£ffi' CRIMINALAEEESAEUNDER csassAL HlQfi COURT OF CHHATTISOARH ATuILAsFUR Criminat Aapeai No. 391 /2006 Jugal Kishore Pandey '""Si. !'y ytate ot cnnattisgam Judeinent post for o?8 -3-2008 Sd/- DhirendraMishi-a Judge nii'iiii :(;".;.: isi;"M;< ^.^1 ;!'T'~fi :BBffii^teS^^aJ^ii^!to'*rti»i^t&ri«wii*i,»aKII»i!m^^ 1 ^ HIGH COURT QF' CuHAT-nSOAKH AT BILASPUR Criminal Aooeal No. 391/'^UU6 ^i!fcA :rUl W; i rii' i'JU Jugal Kishore Panclev, son ot. Late Shri. Onkar Prasad Pandey, aged aDout 3U years, occ'upation teaclier, •n^a^*i -i /J ,^-t-^ 'f- i^Sl^lCiiL of V U.ia.^^ R^-3+"/^--i" ij JLKxi-^cujil, Uham.tari, uistt. unamtan (yuj VERSUS Htate ot Cl'itiatuSRai'n, uirougti the PoUcc Oi.£3.LlUll~ City Kotwali, Dhamtari, Distt. DhaDitan (CG'j J-'resent:. sm-i Awaan 'J.TtpaUii, : Advocate, tor uie appeuant. Shri Ar'un Sao, '1 Pnl-.l^ T^T..^^, L^-iU.i. i7 LliJll^- £71U^: fr-r- +>:f iUl Li 10 siate. JUD GM E NT PB-3-2008) ^J 'l'ms cnminal appeal is du'ectecl against tne luagment ot conviction ancl ord.er ot sentenGe dated. '^ym Apru, ,'^UUb passeci in y.'r. No. ..i^u/'^uus wnereby learned Adclitionai HessiQns Juclge, unaintari, nas Gonvicted tlie appeuaat uncler yection 37bil| ot l.P.U. and sentenced I'lmi to iinciergo K.l. tor y years wiui tme ot Ks. '^ou/- ana in ctelault ot paynient ot une,ao turrner unclergo K.'i. lor two monuis. 2, Case ot ttie prosecution, m t3net, is uiat Uie appeliant was teacher in Saraswati Shishu Mandir where fhe prosecutnx, a gu'l agecl aDout l^ vears was stuctvuiR in ciass- £>. Hix ni6nuis pnor to tlie clate ot loctgmg ot the report i.e. 7- 2-2005, appellant calted fhe prosecutrix in Banfc IKbthi. The appellanti called tlie prosecuUTX ui recess wmie sne'was plaving wmi ner tnencls ancl asKed lier to sweep ms room.. When fhe prosecutnx was leaving after compieting tne workj M' '--'-. ^,^ "Tg?-. •ljil.l::t;:l ot sweepmg, tlie appeuant caugnt ner, openecl tier uncterwear ana stcuT, made ner lie on t&e grouncl and. slept on faer atter takmg outhis Dhoti and underweai' aiid did wrong thing. She tned to resist, nowever tie gaggea ner moutti. Atter committmg ftie oflence, he tnreatenecl her not to disclose aoout tlie mciaent, otlier wise ne wouid tseat lier. He torciDlv raped her 4 tunes. Afterwards, she stopped going school because of fhe above act. When her mother Saroiani Bai asked the reason for not Ronig to school, she naTrated about tlie uiciclent to ner. yne nad also naiTatecl aoout UT.e incia.ent to her friends. Her mother convened the nieeting of the teachers ot~ the school and other' Important persons ot t&e village on '2-'2-'2fJUf) and Uiereatter Uie report ot Kx.r-2 was lodged on 7-2-2005. 111:! 3. Atter registeruig Uie ottence, me proseciTtrix';was sent tor meclicai examinanon to uoveiTunent Hospital, unam.tan where Dr. Smt Asha Tripafhi (P.W. 17) exaaiined her and gave medico legal exaniination report of Ex. P-19. Admission register of Ex. P-17 was taken into possession vide Ex. P-12 troni t&e scnool. Kottvan register was also : taKen uito possession vide Ux. P-21 trom Kowar. Butn Certiticate ol Ex. f-2'2 and Dirui certilicate given Dv Kot'.var 01 ux;. F-23 were taKen mto possession. Aft.er completing the investigation, charee sheet was filed in ifhe Court of Chief Judiclai Magistrate, Dlianitari wt )i m. turn, comniitted tHe case to tne Ltourt ot- Ses ;lons y'EKig^gNlMSIjll ffil! ^s 3i!j.i trom wnere learnecl Aclclifional yessions uuctge receivecl me case on transler tor tnal. llt:;l <-- i;!i;i il 5. Leanied Acldltional yessions Juctge n'aniect me cnai'y.e under Section 376i'.i,i. and 506-B of I.P.C. The appeUan.t aBiurecl ms guilt. 6. Tlie proseGution ui order to establish the cn.ai^es agamst tlie appeilant, e^ammed '^4 witnesses. 'l'faereatter, statement ot accused was recoraecl, ui wiiicti, ne cteruecl tlie evidence appeanng agam.st nuii and pleadecl innocence and talse implication as a result ot animosit^'. He also examuied J.K. nair, HuD-i.nspector ui nis ctetence. /. Leamecl triaJ. Court atter neanng counsejt tor Uie respective parties, convicted tiie appeUant uncler section 37b|lj ot rne l.F.c. and. sentencea nun as mentionea; aDove, however the appellant was acauitted from the charge of Section 506-B of I.P. C. 8. Leanied counsel for me. appeUant argued fhat fhe 'prosecutrK has implicated the appellaiit in the above offence at tne uistaiice ot one Hemen Kafiu jp.w. 11] as nis: wite nacl unsuccessluuv contestecl eiection QI danpad inemDer against Uie Bnauli.1 ot Uie appellant wno won tlie election. Since me appeuant aict not wiUidraw tlie caactidature ot ms tsnastu on me request ot J-lemen Saliu ana, meretore, ne mipUGatecl me ~a;ppellant in a false case through the prosecu^rix.^THe: sTatement ot tne prosecutrix ux. U-b was recorcledl "T^^n t4fi tJ5tLfeS*l^?5?'4kui ^c4Ui<itaBAW on;rf T^ifi^l^lii^^l'lWtl ffiii S^i,?!^ 5S=S^= (S-. '-^^- B^: 2UU5 in anoUier onence and. sne clid not malce auegations ot rape agamst tlie appeUant ana made aUegations ot oniy outraging moctesty. 'l'tie prosecutnx liacl macte matenal improvement ui ner ctepositioa betore me Court aDout committlng sexual intercourse, fhougli she has not mentionea ttiis tact m ner t<'.l.K. and uie dian'' statement ot Ex. V-'i. 'l'l-ie case ot Uie prosecution is tliat Uie ottence was tirst tmie cpmmitted by th^ appeUant six nionths prior fo the date ot tne K.l.K. i.e. '/-.•'-'^uus, nowever m tne Uoiut, Uie prosecutrK has stated fhat the appellant caUed her for ttie fu'st tmie, a week Detore '2t>st Januan?,20U5 aact atter mat date, the ofience was repeated bv the aopeliant on 4 occasions. 'l'lie report 'nas tieen locigecl Oelateaiv and. mere is no convincuig explaaauon tor the cleiay. Even atter Uie meeting of 2nd Februar^', 20Q5, tlie repoit was lodged after tive days and there is evidence that the parents ofthe prosecutrix were not inclinea to report ttie matter, liowever, ev were instigatecl to loclge Uie report &y me vuiagers paTticulariv nemen yanu. 9. KeUaiice is placecl on " ; Suresti N. iaffa -v- State ol 3 aiicl BliupeiOdra (as, Motu Fatle -v -lySlSifllj MFWN jNOte WOI.Sl^j :2001('I) MPn'N Note 123 • s 2608(11CGLJ 33 <a*~ i ^! Iffiiil •L il !Biii a 10. On fhe ofher hand, leamed coiinsel for tfae State has supportea ttie unpugned. iuagnient. 11.' ConvT.ction of fhe appeUant is based on statement of fhe proseeutrbi. (P.W. 3),- her mother Sarojani Bai (P.W. 1), Ku. Nmnalai'P.W. 2'i, father of the prosecutrix Sryaram ('P.W. 5), Mahadev Sahu ('P.W. 16'j as also the evidence of Dr. Asha TnpaUu [f.W. i'/j wno, ftas examined me prosecutt''K ana provea tier meclico legalexaniination report.. 1'2. Leam.ed"ta~ial'Court on ttie basis ot statement ot fhe prosecuuix ancl yaTOiaru Bai (F.W. l) mat Uie prosecuu''uc: was studying m Class-5 m Sarasliwati ynisliu Manclu', entnes m the adniission register of Ex. P-17, which has been proved by witness Mahad.ev.Sahu, the evidence ot Kotwar Hinctiharain (P.W. 21'), who has produced the register of Ex. P-2'2 and birth certificat.e ofEx. P-23, has arrived at the conciusion that fhe date of birUi of the proseeuti-ix was 24th September, 1992 as the above ei'idence has not been chaJlenged by tne defence in meir cross-exam.mation. 13. Leanied comisel for the appellant has also not advan.ced anv argument against the above linding. •. i4. Leaniecl counsei tor tlie appellant .: nas mucn empnasized. on the statement ot me 'prosecutrK wlierein sne nas stated ttiat slie was tor tlie tn'st tune, ranecl oiie weeK Detore UWa uanuary.'JUUS by tlie aRpeUant, ana agam. raped ner ui uie intervals ot one weeK, tw *.:i;:.'.i1i ttierearter ne. ; ww^ '^- SS o weeks, Q|i®|^|||j ET^'l?F.^^^ r. ^f^^s^^^KfSf.^S^siy^.T.'w^^^ ifT38®tBB^as^G(&(5K iiIiiliBBi ii'iUitSB '--»? wee'& and m tne sam.e weelc. 'l'nis is in compiete vanance ot me prosecuuon case. yne stancls contraaictea by lier own report wmcn was loclged on Ym tl'e'or\iar\', ^UUY. it nas Deen further argued fhat fhe conduct ofthe prosecutrix was highlv unnatru'al as slie contuiued to attend ciasses tor six monms even atter sfae was ravisnea ty,' tlie appellant. iNon-aisctosure ot tne mciclent:to tlie moUTier also tlirows senous cloubt on me version ot toe prosecutri^. ifiven alter tne. nieetuig datecl 'A-i- 2005, the report was lodged on 7-2-2005, mat too, on msistence ot t.ne viUagers incluclmg i-leman yariu (H.W. ilj. it was aiso stressed Uiat tlie prosecutnx nas not menUoned. either in her report ofEx. P-2 or ui her diar^' statement ofEx. u-2 tnat me appeuant insertect ms male organ in tier vagma ancl &as maae matenai miprovement betore tne Court in uns regard ancl tnese aiscrepanaes are to De appreciated m tne Ugtit of the evidenee tftat tl-iere was some election related dispute petween. i-iemaii Lal Satiu and. tlie appeUant ancl Uie . viilaRers and tne saicl J-teman Lal sanu prevailect upon toe . parents ot Uie prosecumx in niaKuig Uiem. to loctge report tnougn.mey were.reluctant. i.5. l.t is true tnat tfae prosecutrix nas cleposect Uiat stie was rapecl tor me tu-st time, a weeK betore ^bm danuan', '2<.ws, nowever in tne same paragra.pn, sne nas also deposed uiat sne toicl about me rape to ner niomer. one weeK atter sne was. rapeu tor tlie last mn.e. Consiaenng tlie age ot tlie prosecutrDt^t ^!11 that she hardly completecl 12 vears on ttie da wjtienaaGteligiKJia 1 -£S^K:ti, ». 4! statement was recorded -before the Court, the above lapse alone cannot De a reason to cliscarct ner eviclence, particuiaTt^' wnen nerversion is also coiTO-boratecl trom me eviclence ot Ku. nu'maia (F.w. '2} wiio is nerseu victim ot ine uidecent actvances ot tlie appeUant as also tne stateaient ot Saroiani Bai (P.W. 1), niother of tlie prosecutrix, Siyai'aiii (P.W. 5), lamer ot tne prosecuti'ix, Kaiiiacthai' (P.W. 9) anct Hemanlal yaliu (H.w. 11) wno liase also statect that t&e proseGutnx nuormeci mem aDout me act ot tne appeuant. Her statement is also coiTobo'l'ated'from the evidence of Dr. Asha 'T'ripathi ('P.W. 17') who examined her on 7-2-2005 and observed that ner sexual cn.aracters were not well developecl, liowever her nymen was torn, sne was not accustomed to sexual intercourse. Dut slie was suDiected. to sexual uitercourse m. tlie past. sne was exaaunecl on 7-2-2UUQ i.e. atruost niore tlian 15 ciays atter sne was su&iected to m.tercourse ancl, therelore, absence of in1uri.es or pain would not make fhe version ol uie prosecutnx cloubUul. 'l'l'ie prosecutrix is a cnua ^ aged l'2 i'eai's, wnen was suDjected , to mciecent advances/ sexual assault Dy none else man tier own teaclier. in sucn cu'cumstances, it is not expected trom ner to immediatelv react to such act and that too ot~ her own teacn.er, particularlv consiaenng tne tractitional rurat DacKground ui wnicn stie was brougtit up. 'rne evidence adctucea DV tne prosecutrix is also to be appreciated. ligUt ofthe statement ofKu. Nirmala j'P.W. 2), Ku. ;<"" 4) and. KU. unam.esnwari uevangan (F.w. 7) wlio are also stuctents ot Class-i) ui me scnool ot Uie appeilant ana wno all nave alleged. mat tlie apDeuant. maae indecent aavanees towards fhem also. Thetr version is further corroborated from ijC^;, the statement olBemlnbal IP.W. -10), Maliactev Sahu (P.W. 161 and cnancma Sanu [P.w. 1'^j wlio are teacners UT. tne scliool ot me appeuant anct tliey au nave stated uiat UT. tne nieetuig ;^ convenea m tlie scliool./tne aDove namea gu'ls complainea regarcimg sexual narassment Dv ttie appeuant. 16. So far as the reluctance of tfae parents of the prosecutrix in lodging of the report is concerned, it is a natural reaction ot a pai'ent ot me gu'l agecl 12 years, Uiat Uiey would be last person to bnng to tlie tore Uie cusrepute ot ttieu' claugnter ancl the same cannot 'oe construed tnat tney were not Ipaging report Decause no sucn uicident occun'ea. 'l'&e Tact tnat version ot me prosecutnx is duiy coiToDoratect DV me statenient ^it lier parents, ni tact persuades me to believe Uie verston of the prosecutrix as no .parents shall involve n.onoiu' of their own daughter for fhe purooses Qt making .false allegations and. mat too, ot me rape agam.st tne appellant oniv because there is some election related dispufe between Heman Sahu and the appellant. . \ 17. In ftie matter ofVlmal Suresh Kambie1, me prosecuttlx was a domestic servant, sne was allegeaiy raRed bv iier employeF when she was alone wifh him in tlie 'IiQuse, therealter she was loitering in locality for about 2 iiit •31 tne inciaent wmiout reporting me matter to anyDodv, inUiese cu'cum.stances, ner uncon'oboratecl testiDionv was aisDelieved. 18. ln me matt.er or suresfa ^ aiso,. me vlctmi was a grown pregnant laclv ancl tlie auegauon^was tnat atter rape, sne aDorted, nowever on exanimauon atter tew clavs, no sign ot aDortion was nouced ancl sne nact also not menUoned Uiis tact ui me K.I.K, and'ln ttiese circum.stances, ner version was disDelievecl. - iy. in me matter of Dttan Sineli3, conslcteniig tAat uiere was enmiu' between uie parties anct report was lodged belatedlv ana mclependent wttnesses ancl medical evidence were not supportmg prosecunon case, even report • ol f'SL report was not luea, me version ot tlie prosecutnx was UisbeUevect. ' - . yu. in me matter ot'Baupendra'('aLMotu Patleq- conslcleittie me clami ot me prosecutnx agea about l1 vears tliat as a result ot rape, slie sustainea nunierous uiiunes over ner person, Decause ot msertion ot male organ, Dlood was protusely oozuig trom the vaguia ana uie aoctor opmecl Uiat tier nymen was intact and.no miunr tound on tlie ttugtis aacl genitats 01 Uie prosecumx, no tear, no Dleeauig, no tenclerness was louna, tl-us Court clisbelieved. Uie wersion ot; tne proseGUtrDt and. aequittecl me appellant- SiQ flllNi IHIII iSi 10 'i 1. However ui Uie uistarrt case, as already m.enuonecl ui Uie toreKomg paragrapn, Uie rape is alleged against Uie appeuaat wlio is teaclier ot me prosecutnx. l-ler version is duly con'oborated from the ofher evidence uicluding the statement of her schoomiates who were also subjected to sexual liarassment at fhe hands of the appeUant Her version is also coiToDorated trom tne evidence ot Ur. Asna 'lTipatAi as also her parents to whomf she disclosed about fhe incident when she could not sustain the atrocious act ot' fhe appeuant 3n.Y morc. ^- '2,'2.. Un me Dasis ot tlie aloresaicl discussion, ttie appeal Deuig devoicl ot suDstance cteserves to De aismissea and it is &ereDy aismissea. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge