^1@€? ss ^ m i§ 1 ]sII IP !<3 1» i» w •i^ [^ \^ |a \^ <» i-0 ••lo as 1 Ii' m w^ -^^ ^-... i.ir.!;.&a;-~Sl^;i;?..i;lKn^::'.i= f^OK yrt\ l3 S. \ 0 rt- - ^ (D ':?r.':-I .3 ^) • (Sb ::1-£^-...'./.:::':11^ I?'1' ^ &j • ^ ^;.-'.''-:'/... ••''.•-'. "i&"'1; . ..•:: /.: : !.\ :®;;iSi^.%^''€ .0.^i-^l.p3:^fc-t.\ ^-S''M^:'S..S. 0) ^-©a ©^^^^ ..f-t<.:.b'..i.';.-^ l.:-,'i,^,:-; ,'<<- ..@-.: ^-^M i-\.0"^;< ' ;:-©;f: '^••^•^ 'tQ ^ ^ ^ .^;.^1^;.-,'^ :^^m..^ NMl m^- SB ^ ft m y .Mu'.® Ml :•»» -: t'.vl:0^i "'B '< PBI^» r ® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Criminal Appeal No. 101/1996 APPELLANT Lakshmanram Versus RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Sunil Sahu counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma PL for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (11 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (30.03.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.12.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar, District Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 205/1995 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorcus imprjsonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 28.7.1995 at about 9.45 a.m. FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1) aged about 16 years at the relevant time alleging that on 27.7.1995 she had gone to jungle for grazing buffalos where at about 4 p.m. accused/appellant also reached there and after throwing her on the field committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that while resisting his act, her skirt got torn and onhearing her cries her brother-in-law namely Fabiyanus Tigga (PW-2) had reached there. Based on this report, offence u/s 376 IPC was registered against the accused/appellant, prosecutrix was sent for medical examination on 29.7.1995 vide Ex. P-11 and after completion of investigation, challan was filed by the police on 25.8.1995 for the said offence. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled ""^'.•'.. hrtl' •^ <L against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity and that the findings of the Court below convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376 IPC being based on mis-appreciation of the evidence available on record are unjust and liableto be set aside. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that looking to the manner in which the accused/appellant subjected the prosecutrix to rape taking advantage of her loneliness in the jungle, his conviction under Section 376 IPC is just and proper. He however submits that he is not pressing IA No. 3149/1996 for enhancement of the sentence filed by the State. Accordingly, it is rejected as not pressed. 7. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident she had gone to jungle to graze the buffalos where at about 4 p.m. accused/appellant came there and after making an enquiry about her brother-in-law, he went for cutting down the trees. After sometime, the accused/appellant again came to her, caught hold of her hand, threw her on the ground and after tearing off her skirt and underwear committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. While she tried to raise an alarm for brother-in-law, the accused/appellant had pressed her neck. Meanwhile, after the accused/appellant had completed his act, her brother-in-law came there and on seeing him the accused/appellant ran away. According to her, as a result of sexual intercourse by the accused/appellant she was feeling severe pain in her private part. Thereafter, she went back to her village and after calling the villagers the incident was disclosed to them and then the report was lodged. She has stated that her skirt and underwear were seized by the police vide Ex. P-2. ^^^^ ^n^l. H ^' .-•z, In cross examination, this witness has categorically denied the presence of other villagers in the nearby fields. In paragraph 4 of her deposition though certain variations are there in respect of the timing of the village meeting as initially she has stated that it was called at about 12 noon and then she changes her version and gives the timing of the same as 4 p.m. This variation in timing appears to be insignificant and does not have any adverse impact on the case of the prosecution. Fabiyanus Tigga (PW-2) - the brother-in-law ofthe prosecutrix has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident the prosecutrix hadgone to the jungle for grazing buffalos and at about 3 - 3.30 p.m. on hearing her cries when he reached the spot, he saw the accused/appellant standing near her and on seeing him he left the spot. According to him, he saw the prosecutrix in lying condition, her skirt was torn and she was weeping. He has clarified that from some distance he had seen the accused/appellant mounting on the prosecutrix and was getting up. According to him, after village meeting being called at 4 p.m. the report was lodged in the police station. Mariyam Kujur (PW-3) - the sister of the prosecutrix has stated in her evidence that after returning home, the prosecutrix had informed her that she was subjected to rape by the accused/appellant and that her skirt was torn and she was weeping. Surendra Giri (PW-4) is the investigating officer who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. Radheshyam (PW-5) is the witness to the seizure of slides vide Ex. P-9. Benjamin Lakada (PW- 6) is the Patwari who had prepared spot map Ex. P-10. Dileshwar (PW-7) is the witness to seizure of handkerchief; underwear and Lungi of the accused vide Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-8. S. Toppo (PW-8) is the doctor who had medically examined the accused/appellant and given his report Ex. P-10-A stating that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Smt. J. Minj (PW-9) is the doctorwho had medically examined the prosecutrix and given her report Ex. P- 12 stating that there was abrasion on her elbow, she was complaining pain on both her thighs and waist and was feeling pain while walking, there was swelling and redness in her vagina, hymen was fresh torn, two fingers entered her vagina with difficulty and on touch she was complaining pain in her private part. According to this ^ ^ ,^ witness, the prosecutrix was subjected to rape within 1-2 days therefrom. 8. In view of aforesaid discussion it is clear that when the prosecutrix had gone to jungle to graze buffalos, accused/appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Statement of the prosecutrix which is fully supported by the doctor (PW-9) who had medically examined her and found swelling and redness in her vagina where she was complaining pain on touch. Moreover, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is also positive. The statement of the prosecutrix being duly supported by the medical evidence is fully consistent and this Court does not see any reason to discard the same. In this view of the matter, the judgment impugned convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376 IPC is just and proper and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 9. Accordingly, the appeal being without merits isliable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such. Judgment impugned is, hereby maintained.Accused/appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. He be sent to jail forthwith. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ll;.: