IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR $ma" Eéism: CriminalAgpaal 8g? /2006 S.B. '\) (Criminal Anneal u/s 374 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 against conviction) APPELLANT\Accused/ : Ballu Rawat Convict(1n Jail) S/O Bhikhu Rawat Aged about 35 years, Occupation-Mazdoori WO Police Station, Bori Distt. Durg CG.) VERSUS RESPONDENT : State of Chhattisgarh ThroughzPolice Station Bori ‘ Distt. Durg (C.G.) / S.T. No. 267/2005 Date of Judgement — 07-1 1-2006 X” Court learned 2nd A S J Durg/ Conv1ct10n u/s— 37% IP C and Sentence 7gis R{With fine of Rs 10667: 1n default of payment of flne 1 month Imprisonment 1n Additional. APPLICATION U/S 374/CililMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973 AGAINST CONVICTION. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU R (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 2006 APPELLANT Ballu Rawat VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Shri Arvind Kumar Dubey counsel for the appellant. Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL for respondent/State. RIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE O CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (05.08.20 0) Thi appeal is directe agains t judgm and r 7..206 assed by Additinai Sessions ge, Dug, i o ril N.67/2005 convicting the accuedappeliant n ction 1 n Sessins Ta o2 s/ uder Se 376 () IPC n senning m to undrg riorous impisont for yr n pa n Rs in defa f e o furh u is o one m ad tec hi eo g rnme seven eas ad y fie of .1,000, ult o paymnt of fine t ter ndergo rigorous impronment fr onth. . se the prosecutin in brief is that on 15.08.05 FI (.P wa lodge y the prosutrix (PW-1), a married l gd au year at the relevant time, to the ffect tht on tha y i th morni ou u d o e pt n s al wet ere in th h e ccused/appellant he called her inside the house'and committd frci sexual intercourse wit her. After investigation, the chal/an was filed an the prosecution of the accused/appellant followed. l i 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded ur‘der section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him i and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case This apart i 2 Ca of o 20 R Ex-1) s d b ec ady ae bot 25 s e a t da n e ng hrs her daghter Jyoti ha gone to the house f th accused/apellan , ad when he did not return for about two hours, she so n th search of her. When e prosecutrix reached te house of th a e oble h d i C F J U D G M E N T 1 s d t he ent oder dated 0110 p o Jud r mmww z g; wi’ , two defence witnesses namely Suniti (DW—1) and Basanti (DW-2) hav also been examined by the defence in support of its case. ei i i 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convncted and" sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materiai available on record includmg the Judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the accused/appeilant submits that present appears td be a case of consent where the prosecutrix had gone to the house of the ’ accused/appellant at her own and as she was seen there in his companj by Jangalu (PW—6) and Shiv Kumar Madharia (PW-7), a faise report has been the medicai Iodged. report According of the to prosecutrix the counsei does for the not accused/appellant, support the prosecutiol. eve t case and that the entire story put forth by the prosecutrix appears to be‘ highly improbable to be made basis for convicting the accused/appellant under section 376 iPc. ‘ 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that as the FIR has been lodgedvery promptly, the statement of the prosecutrix categorically stating as to how she was made a victim of rape by the accused/appellant the findings recorded by the Court below convicting and sentencing their accuse/appellant are Just and proper warranting no interference in this appeal He submits that as per the medical report the prosecutrix had sustained abraSIon on her left wrist which shows that while making an attempt to get out of the clutches of the accused the injury was caused td her. l ' 8. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that‘on the date of incident when she was standing outside her house along with her daughter Jyoti accused/appellant came there and asked her to let hef daughter to accompany him for a stroll and after receivmg her permission he took her daughter With him As for two hours thereafter her daughter J had not returned the prosecutrix also went near the house of ther ccused/appellant and while she was crying by her daughter s name the i l i l a r57 1 accused/appellant told her that her daughter was in his house; Thereafter while >she was proceeding towards her daughteré accused/appellant dragged her to the court yard, gagged her m0uthi _ , threw her on the cut and committed forcible sexuai intercourse with hen While resisting the act of the accused/appellant, her bangles are also stated to have broken. After commission of the offence the prosecutrix i ‘ stated to have got back to her house weeping along with her daughter. l cross—examination also nothing extra has been stated by this Witness an her stand taken in the examination—in-chief held the ground. Kamlesh Vaishno (PW 2) — the husband ofthe prosecutrix has stated that when he returned home for havnng lunch the prosecutrix was found weeping and then entire rncrdent was narrated to him by her Statement of this Witness is also supported by Jangalu (PW—6) and Shiv Kumar Madharia (PW-7) ‘ who have stated that the prosecutrix had met them on the Village square and narrated the entire inCident of rape Tirath Das (PW—3) is the Village; Kotwar- who had prepared the spot map. M. ,L. Patel (PW-5) lnvestigating Officer has supported the case of the prosecution Dr M Cl; Mohnod (PW 4) who medically examined the accused/appellant has“ stated that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse Dr Smt" Manjusa Umradekar (PW—8) who medically examined the prosecutrix has stated that there was abrasion on her left wrist and asshe was a married * l lady, nodefinite opinion regarding rape on her can begiven. 9. Having gone through the entire material available on record including the statement of the prosecutrix it is clear that she was subjected to forCible sexual intercourse by the accused/appellant after she had gained the entry to his house in search of her daughter. Since r r k the prosecutrix is a married lady, the corroboration of her statement byll i r way of medical evidence cannot be expected to be a necessity. The“ statement of the prosecutrix itself is sufficient to sustain the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below. Not only this, even the defence . i has notbrought forward any evidence to support the plea of his false /.. , . i implication or that of the prosecutrix being a consenting party to his act: I w Accordingly, the judgment impugned suffers from no infirmity or illegalityi ‘r, ew:n W y j i \ nd being so it is hereby maintained. The appeaL in other words, fails. s dismissed as such. Sdl- ‘ V ’ Pritinker Diwaker a Judge y a i