•sn^T?n R-ii* T'a'I sn^T ifit|i<* S'eq' "i)|c<i<?'>q, axfly'ic, (sidiyy an^?r'q^re C^f^5li) ?^IWdfOT SII^I HIGH COURT OF CRI Appellant (Injail) Respondeat IVs Present: Mr. V.K. Sharffl Mr. Neeraj Meh ^., counsel for the appellant. ja, P.L. for the State/respondent. Dhirendra Mishra^ J This appeal is conviction and orddr recorded in Sessionsl Sessions Judge, FTQ has been convicted Penal Code and ser) years and pay a fi payment of fine to three months. 2. Case of the p prosecutrix, 75 yea: ct>i<it<n<il*1 '^C^ ^^^ ^f^R ^? -^Rffi <KI^I CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR A. N0.848 OF 2002 MohitRam s/o Dayal Chouhah, aged - 40 yrs. R/o Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Mittu Muda - Raigarh. StateofC.G. ORAIl JUDGMENT 09.08.2007) (lirected against the judgment of of sentence dated 17.7.2002 Trial No.26/02 by III Additional |, Raigarh whereby the appellant l-inder Section 376 of the Indian t^tenced to undergo R.I. for ten i|ne of Rs.1000/-, in default of fl-irther undergo imprisonment for t-osecution in brief is that the •s old lady, lodged a report in —IIIa! .... _—-..^.-..-..^— :.;a-He—78 ^v^ ^rFn^T, (*Tf1tiii<i, Rf^i'yy ^l*id( **fl* sn^r la^; (4t<fl«i<ff) ail^T W ft-irt W 31K^I stiii'n 'TOiwaft? sii^i 2- •=bl4i<!l<il-1TV^ "Effe%t <[a><4i< ^sTRnanesr Police Station Kotwalf 22.35 hours to the e| her residence, the ac| in-law met her and a; house on the promis|< On her refusal, he towards the field, cc|i forcibly raped her an| knife not to disclosi incident to her siste] and thereafter lodged| for raedical examinal where Dr. J. Ekka (P'\ report of Ex.P/5. charge sheet was filejl under Section 376 of , Raigarh on 25.4.1995 at about 'ect that while she was going to :used who is son of her brother- ked her to accompany him to his that he shall leave her back. aceompanied her and took her nsumed liquor on the way and threatened her on the point of this fact. She narrated the Chandniati, Bhurai, Shantibai the report. The lady was sent :ion to K.G. Hospital, Raigarh |V-5) examined her and gave her After completing investigation against the accused/appellant the IPC. 3. Prosecution in c the accused exarain Thereafter, statemenl recorded under Sectii fhe prosecutrix has n she died during pe: Additional Sessions the respective partie ^der to establish charge against ^d six witnesses during trial. of the accused/appellant was <n 313 of the Cr.P.C. However, (|)t been examined during trial as ttdency of the case. Learned |udge after hearing counsel for convicted and sentenced the XI-HG—78 sn^T ?i WM wn 3iis?i sh'ii'* 3^T '^WW'tl, wS)v'IG, Rloiiyy HIHrtl *t(l* •-^ Sif^T XRg; ('pl^g?^) TCiiw^to 3ii^i accused/appellant as this judgment. appeljlant prosecu1)nx 4. Learned counsel ; conviction of the of Chandmati prosecutrix/deceased, on the statement pf examined the her report of Ex.P/5| perusal of the report doctor has advised to Science Laboratory a4' regarding commission However, there is conviction is based on| rape might have prosecutrix. He furth^r and PW-2 Bhuraibai they were informed incident that the her. However, in their) respectively there are| that the prosecutrix l^ narrated about the incj aite accitsed <^)*rin<fti ,'MWMf ^'fe^ XS^^R ^ SlfilH 311^1 inentioned in paragraph 1 of for the appellant argued that is based on the statements ||PW-1), sister of the and Bhuraibai (PW-2) as also pr. Smt. J. Ekka (PW-5), who after the incident and gave It is contended that from |of Ex.P/5 it is clear that the isend the slides to the Forensic id only thereafter her opinion of rape could be confirmed. report of the P.S.L. and the opinion of the doctor that jbeen committed upon the argued that PW-1 Chandmati the witnesses of the fact that |by the prosecutrix after the has committed rape upon statements of Ex.D/1 & D/2, oniissions regarding the fact t^ad shown her body while she Ident and this fact is missing in nlo sn^r.^i R-ii<<i 'tCT 311^1 sf)li<»i 3^^ "41<11?»<1, ®T{)<H'I<?,fs|^i^M< antw TR^; (^«<fyi<(!ii' THnwgtesii^r ^- the statement of witness fact that the prosecutri Sheela and Manjulata is statement of Ex.D/2, are not reliable and their Chandmati. Similarly, the |c narrated the incident to |also raissing from the diary th^refore, these two witnesses k'ersions cannot be believed. 5. On the .other hand State/respondent the trial Court. learned counsel for the supporjted impugned judgment of 6. I have heard learne)! parties and perused the n^ 7. PW-5 Dr. Smt. J.l prosecutrix on 26.4.1995 she noticed an abrasion rib, she was complainin^ present around it. On ii| observed that blood clotsl hair, blood was oozing lacerated wound in the position, fresh blood complaining pain on complaining pain when vagina and blood was 002) opined that it appears CM^^II' 'iTF^ff ^ f^i" <^<^!< ^Tsffgiisn^l counsel for the respective aterial available on record. Ekka, has examined the land on external examination over right armpit near 10th pain, there was dry blood iiliternal examination she had were present over the pubic from vagina, there was a private parts in 6 O'clock jyas oozing and she was touching. She was also igers were inserted into her jing from uterus. The doctor that the lady was raped, fibi GRPRJ— FS/246—2/200- 50.UUO. ':f^S'fisws3,"1%®^^ 'l^i^lill^^ 3?I^5T.Tf k-il'sh WiaiI^T stili'k 3^:cT^lT?T?5?T, ^Tfl'M'lfi, R|ril'yl!< ^Wvit *t<l<h sn^ ws (•'^yys. ??cIIW ^lf?^ W^I < however, she advised confirniation. The pros( hospital for treatment a; cross-examination she injuries were fresh in stated the duration but that the internal injuries prosecutrlx were not pos; chemical examination for •cutrix was admitted in the blood was oozing. In the Has further stated that the ijiature though she has not ^he has categorically opined present over vagina of the slible as a result of fall. sl-ie defehce 8. PW-1 Chandmati immediately after the narrated the incident to narrating the incident raped by the accused whi is the evidence of PW-: pointed out by the does not affect the veraci|ty two witnesses, which is allegations present in t| lodged by the prosecutri|x The version of thesel corroborated by the medji cumulative effect of the is that the prosecution guilt of the-accused beyo]nd ^pif?ra^ •iwmf•?fs^t IT SfRpT STI^F has also stated that iitcident the prosecutrix. had |her in detail, at the time of was weeping as she was is of her son's age. Similar Bhuraibai. The omission is trivial in nature and of the statements of these further corroborated by the |he FIR of Ex.P/4 promptly herself after the incident. two witnesses is also :al evidence. Therefore, the svidence available on record been able to establish the reasonable doubt and the - r hbs GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50.UOO. XI-HC—78 ~Swf Hf|<<lpi.<4, 8iTfiy'16, Rl<?iltiy NWrtt *^11* an^r vw (ipf^si^r) siA^i w h-u^i '^T sn^T^RN^ ^mwnf^Tsii^T s qirafwq^ tnTOf -if.fs^ ifa^i). iTsifiraati^i Court below has not infirmity by recorping accused/appellant on tl-t committed any illegality or conviction of the e basis of above evidence. fdr circumst^nces 9. Learned counsel the facts and punishment ought to appellant. However, argument also taking i4 an old lady of 75 yj appellant, was raped by| liquor. the appellant argued that in of the case some lesser have been awarded to the am unable to accept this to consideration the fact that ;ar, who was aunty of the the appellant after consuming 10. In the result, substance is liable to bd dismissed. t|he appeal beirig devoid of dismissed and is accordingly, -_—_-_^______. u