.tg'i s"- S.jr-f, 3SBSSSagS^BBBS^BBJ8SBM u \^_ '/ .K.^s ^ M I HS HIGH CQUEI e-E- H&DEZA PBADESH Aa:' J-ABALPOB GR. APP^AL Hp. •/' \vl V OF 1991*-. Hanbodtu. son of Snkdu Gond, aged 3?,years, resldeat of villags Singhanpuri, PS ' / Sahaspur Iiohara, Talisil Kawardha, District Bajnandgaon, MP ?s. THB SIA3S OF H.P. / CaiMIHAL APISAL VSVS aECTIOS 374(2') OF THE CEXMINAL PBOG3DUKE COB.S_. .. AP.PELLMT (m JAIL) EESPONDa T te •Ss HKHI COUKT OK CHK&mSS&RH AT BItASPUR SB : HON'BtEMR. JUSTICS PRITHiKBRKlWftKER CR.A,:;NO. 196fl99^ : ., :,'.: •„ :,'.::; ManbQdhi: .••,:,..', RBSPONDBNT versiis State ofMadhya Praaesh SliffAl;ai^etSa[£^?®BHBSel^r;tbfi.a^ : • Shri,Viv^jS!ianita,,^{^^:^TetBe':Sta;te.^ ^ ' ,;':,'. .. ".^r. •(22.06.a010j':': ' •••.• ;/::' The gresent appeal arises oyt of thc judgmfint.aiid order 1 '28.1.94 passed.'by'thR .AdditiQij.a! Sessioas,, <3udge, Kliairagadx-: ia. 'S.T. . Ko.' ^(SUsed^appeBaii^^r^'tte :QSEa^ ^ :'.3^:^0Ktla®(l:l|'<2ian(:{s:s6%teDciiig,^ fer'SeveE years.'i,.^,i.,^''^^';.^fi^,;;s';;'.^'. '^..-,,:;•.°. . . , •'""' : :-.;:^; • . '•2. :-, Gase,of-fiie;:p^s®:EB,ti©Bim. '{Ex.P/^Sj^was' todg(^(1:^:|Bei^^^(;HBnxs(P.'W'.-3^'age;3: abouit ^26- years altegiiig ;in:,it''t.h.a{;ja|Sa^||'e^®^'ftiGreto,.i.e%on.: lQ:,!7,.93;,pB.' fhfi eve of Hareli festiwai;:^|^(iM)%-4.<30i:,^.ia^wlieii;.-shc,.was . ''retcLEBim.g • after ^attendmigi;'^|t§%iic;allg^^natui^;''^ -accusedy^ppnant;;:appEefi£a3 ;BK^i|gi3^at ItC^^ ..:•- lier:on,'tBs.ifield,aa<t,a£i^^g^^i^|3:isi|^^ clptluii^ii^ .^F^^;c»inaMS^ •^ ; ' ^::''^;. ^'.'So .;.as,';:' to, ''iiold^ "... - pKi^eution .lias, -examiaed^|l,t;,';wituesses.;^:St^ acca^d^agpeBant.w®^^a]s&^GOK^ff;'aM 'S%'^^®||^|'^1®l.lSI?il^S88BSIgllBBiS3K .<^p.:C.^wIucli^he,denie8.^1^i;cB&^s:|e^lec^ ^^^! •rs -2-^- % fll W.I pleaded his irmocence attd false iiuplication in fhe case. This apart, two defencewitnesses have atso been exaniined bybim in suppprt ofhis case. 4. After yearing counsel for ttie parties, fhe trial Court has convicted fhe accused/appeBaat for the Qffence as nientioned above. Hence fhis appeal. ^- ' '. . . • .'...••• . . . . 5. Heard counsel for tfae parties and perused the inaterial avaiiable on record iacludiagfhe inipugned judgment. 6. Counsel for the appellaitt subinits fUat fhe present is a case offalse unpticafidn wliere oa account of vfllage poUtics ftie appellant has been falsely implicated. He subnuts tliat fbe prosecutrix has not aiade aav eSort to coine out frcim. fhe clutches oftlie accused/appeUaD.t. Further fhere wassuflicient opportunity for her to escape froin the clutches of the accused/appeUarLt. It 3:ias a]so been argued that fhe star wituess of the prQsecutioa namely Rain Sai (P.W.-5) has not supportEd fhe prosecution case aiid has tumed hostile. Lastly, it has been argued that fhe inedical report offtie prosecutrix does not support the prosecution case. 7. Ontheother;haiidsuppprtuigtheimpugriedjudginentit has been argued by tUe State counsel that there is absOIuteSy no evidence on recori to shdw that fhe accused/appeUaiit has been falsely impUcated in fee case. He subinits fhat the incMeat took place on 19.7.93 atabouf 3.00 p.m:.aadasfhehusl3andof fhe prosecutigx was not at hom.e fhe report could not be lodged prompqy.; He subinitstha.ton 19.7.93 at about 6-7 p.m. t husbaad of fhe prosec:utrix returaed and the entu-e iacident ^•a-'' • : ' " ' . ' • : • . ,':' . , ~was narrated tp hiai by the prosecutrix aiid then fh.e repbrtwas •ii -••^"•^- '^ .."• ':'''" .".'.1 :;-:: '' . lodge(l on the next day. In respect of-fche medical report of fhe prosecutrix^ it has been ai^ued by the Ste.te cozuisel that the prosecutnx is inajor aud therefiare even if the report does nof -.•-^;.;- l^ •?^TfT^^rf.swwdw _i. ,^iwv-'^ 1 ":'fe. '"y~ .-y ^'•oSfCSf„ ,Cs -^- support fhe prosecution case the sanie is of no help to the accused/ appeUant. 8. Prosecutrix (P.W.-3) has sfated fhat 6n fhe date of uiGident, on ihe eve ofHaieli festival there was no wbrk ia the agriGultural field, at aboiit 3,00 p.iu. wheu she was fetuniin^ after attending the caU of nature, on the way, accused/appeUaiit caught hold of her and despite her resistance threw her on the field, uptumed her cloflung aad afer gaggiag &erinouth, comiiutfed fQreible sexual inteTcourse with her. She has stated that duiing seuffle her saii aud blouse weretomaiidherbaagles'werebrokeh.SIiehasstatedfhatshe itiade all fhe efforts to coltie out of fhe clutclies of the accused/appellaiit but stle failed. She has furfher sfated that when she was retumiQg, on the way she inet Ram Sai (P.W.-5) aad nan-ated fhe entire iacident to him. She has stated that after returmng to^her hoine, slie has nartated the iacident to her brofher-in-law and sister-iEt-law (Jeth & Jethamf saad at. about 6-7.00 p.in. when her husbaud came she narrated the entire mcident t6 Tiim. In cross examniatlon, the prosecutrix stood veiy finn and has Qot niade aiiy suGh stateinent which inay help the accused/appellaiit. She has furfhe^ stated fhaf fhe poltee statkui is about 30 E3ns. N^^^^^ ^te »iUageaiid th^ the matterwas repbrted prLl±iesecoud,day.TIie app&Uajrt has failed to put any questipn to fhe prosecutnx ia tespect of false implication rather questions have been put fo her fhat she was a consentilig party. Stateiaent of the prosecutrixlias been duly suppQrted^by &.W.-4 Ram KIulawan.Uusbaad oftlie prosecutrix, P.W.<^am KiroIma-viUagei, Babulal (P.W.-8) fe village, Raurua Ram jftW.-Q) brother-in-law (Jefh) 6f tlac i. prose<5utrix aiid L.R.GUfiuhan. (P.W.-IO) fhe Inyestigatuig; •OfBeer. ''' ' : : . ' ' . :;. , : • .''S^.,^ •»•.'»«.„'•,• ,M;?"«bt :-^6s. '' i. 1 ^ ^-€/ -r^ 9. Though Dr.Srat. Kamla ^'aik (P.W.-I) had examiried the prosecutrix, has not found any lajury eiftier on £he extemal or iatenialpartpfthepFosecutrixbutfh.esataeisofno&.elp to fhe aGcused/appeIlant because fhe prosecutrix was a. laarried lady and it has been categoncally stated by her fhat fhe incident took place duj&g rainy seasrin, fhe possibiUty caanotbe ruled out that as it was rainy season the prosecutnx laay not have suffered any extern^iiyuiy. ThepetticQat, sari and b been duly seized bythe^lx:iseeutk>tiwifleEX.P/6aadthePSL report Ex.P/21jalso supportstlw^i^eeutioricase. 10. The eatiie evBieiice is^vievred^ miMiteIy,^ succeeded in provingits^case bey&nd aU^^f^ Statement @f the prosecutrix nispire fuU cohfidence of this Gourt. Thus, froni the evidence of ihe witaesses examiued by ttie prosecution aad the ^djxigs recorded by & convictitig and "serrteiiciiig^ thc aceused/appeUaDt being 'well reasoned oaes, do iiot call for any iatei'ference in fbe judgnient 'UHpugued. ,. 1; -. : ;:: •• ~ .::.'. ,;; ; .;:,• .. •^ 11. Appealfhus does not appear to Jbav®an^ It is accordiagly, (lisiilissed.AppeUantisrepQrfedtobeoti bail. His bail bonds stand^caitcelled. He is direGfed. to imaiediately surrender before'ttie Cburt below/ Ti (^u^ also directedto take appropriafe sfeps imniediately. Sd' Pritinker Diwakcr Judge T». K^