HiGH CGURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT Single Bench : Hon5ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J CrimlnaLApDea! No,810 of 2Q02 0 APPLICANT (!n Jai!) Bhurru Aiias Sukhlai, S/o Sanak Ram Satnami, agsd about 32 years, R/o Bairampur Chowky, Urga Thana, Korba, DIstt. Korba (C.G.) Versus ^ RESPONDENT State .of ChhaSlsgarh Through T"hana Prabhari, Thana Kofrwa!i, Dlstt. Korba (C.G,). ths Shri H.M. Soiapurkar, counse! for the appeilant Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Pane! Lavry'er for respondent/State. Criminal Appeal Under Section 374(2) ofthe Cr.P.C. ORALJUDGMENT (Passedon 10=02-2009) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29-07-2002 passed by Additiona! Sessions Judge, Korba in Sessions Trial No.220/2000 whereby iearned Addjtiona! Sessions Judge after hoiding guilty for the offence punishable under Section. 450 and. 376 of the IPC, sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fme of Rs.100/- each in default thereof R.!. for 10 days each of ths appellant. 2. Judament of conviction is challenged on the ground that without any credible and clinchina evidence avaiiabie on record against the accused/appeliant, Court belo\iy has committed an iiiegality in convicting and sentenclng the appeilant as aforementioned. 3. Prosecution case in brief that on 28-02-2000 at about 11.00 P.M. when the prosecutrix PW/6 Smt. Indra Kunwar was sieeping alone in her house as her husband was not present there, the accused/appellant knocked the door and when she opened the door under the impression that her husband might have come, accused entered Into her house and caught ho!d her, pressed her breast and after making hsr lle down on the ground forcibly committed rape with ;^ 'ky"%] ^. ^-^/ 5^.-^^ k- her. When she cried for heip; Rohit Das, Budhwar and Manglu came there. Whiie she resisted, accused caused teeth blte injury over her cheek. Budhwar, Mangiu and other persons caught hoid the accused and tied him with a rope. On the next day morning, father of the accused came and set him free and took him. Prosecutrix has lodaed report in the poiice station on the basis of which P-6 and P-7 was recorded. She. was sent for medical examination and examlned by Dr. Beena Agrawa! PW/3 who found contusion on the right cheek of the prosecutrix and scratches over the left breast of the prosecutrix. She was accustomed to sexual intercourse. The injury found over the cheek was caused by teeth. Vagina! smear siides were prepared and sent for chemical examination and the same ^vere seized vide Ex. P-13. The accused was a!so sent for medlcal examination on 01-03-2000 vide Ex. P-4. He was examined by Dr. A.R. Porte (PW/4) who vide his report Ex. P-5 opined that the accused vi?as capabie of commstting sexual intercourse. His penis was ciean. The spot map was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex. P-8. Underoear was seized vlde Ex. P-11. Petticoat was selzed vide Ex. P-10. One torn unden^/ear and broken bangle were seized from the spot. Spot map was prepared by the police vide Ex. P-17. Seized articies were sent for chemicai analysis vide Ex. P-21. The presence of sperm was confirmed over the seized articles. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was fiied in the court of Judlciai Magistrate, First Ciass, Korba who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sesslons from where learned Additiona! Sessions Judge received the same on transfer for trial. 4. !n order to prove the guilt of the appeiiant, prosecution examined as manv as 12 witnesses. Statement of the appeliant was recorded under Sectlon 313 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure, 1973 where he denled the circumstances appearing against hlm. He pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 5. After affordlng opportunity of hearing, Court below has convicted and sentenced the appelSant as aforementloned and acquitted the father of the accused/appeilant i.e. Sanakram of the charges under Section 294, 506-B of i.P.C. 6. Couhsei for the parties are heard. Judgment impugned and record of Court below are perused. 7. At the very outset, leamed counsei for the appeljant submitted that after sen/ing the sentence, accused has been reieased but he has challenged the legaiity and propriety of the conviction of the appeilant and submits that the evldence adduced is not sufficient for drav/ing any inference for the commission of the offence against the appeliant. Evidence adduced are not probable and suitable. 8. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer supported the judgment and submits that statement of Smt. indra Kunwar is sufficient for drawing inference that appeiiant has committed criminai house frespass and cornmitted rape with the prosecutrix Smt. Indra Kunwar. 9. in order to appredate the contentions of the counsel for the accused/appellant, i examined the evidence adduced on behaif o? the prosecution. PW/6 Smt. Indra Kunwar prosecutrix has stated that at about 11.00 P.M. at night whi!e she was sleeping Inside her house and her husband was not present, the accused knocked the door when she opened the door under impression that her husband has come. But when she opened the door, the accused entered into her house and has cut her cheeks by teeth and also pressed her breast and iaying down her on the floor and after removing her petticoat and torn the underwear of the prosecutrix he committed forcefuilv sexual intercourse with her. She cried for heip. Her daughter Ku. Amita had aiso started weeping then Budhwar, Manglu and Rohit Das came and caught hold the accused and also tied him with rope. On next day, c6- accused Sanakram came and set free to the appei!ant .Thereafter, the prosecutrix went to police station and lodged FiR vide Ex. P-6. Her bangles were opened, undergarments and bangies were seized. PW- 8 Ku. Amita, daughter of the prosecutrix supported the statement of her mother. PW/1 Manaiu has aiso supported the statement of Smt. Indra Kunwar (Prosecutrix). PW/3 Dr. Beena Agrawa! was examlned the prosecutrix on 29-09-2000 and specificaiiy stated that on her examination. she found muSti-contusion over her right cheek in semi lunar position and also multi scratehes over her ieft breast; she was accustomed to intercourse. She has also stated that the injury over the cheek may be caused as a resuit of teeth bite. PW/4 Dr. A,R. Porte has also examined the accused and found hlm capabie of committing intercourse. .^^^^ 4 L- @; 10. The defence has cross-examined the prosecutrix PW/6 Smt. Indra Kunwar in detaii bu^Jias not been able to elicit anything in her cross-examination to discard^her testimony. The prosecutrix has specifically stated that the accused has committed sexuai intercourse forcefully with her. No suggestion has been made on behaff of the appellant reiating to consent. PW/1 Mangluram has caught red- handed the appellant Injury was found over the body of the prosecutrix. The statement of prosecutrix has been corroborated by the medica! and ocular statement and thesame jnspires confjdence of this Court. 11. After appreciating the evidence avaiiabie on record, Court beiow has convicted and sentenced the appeiiant as aforementJoned. The conviction and sentence imposed uponthe appeiiant is sustainabie under the law. Court has not committed any iliegaiity in convictlon and sentence the appeljant. 12. ln view of the foregoing reasons, i do not find any illegaiity or infirmity in the judgment impugned. The appeai is liabie to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge Kvr