1 8mg Bw‘h IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2005 Heeralal Banjare, S/o Surit Ram Banjare, Aged about 22 years. 2. Jeetlal Banjare, S/o Surit Ram Banjare, Aged about 20 years. 1 Both are residents of : Village Ghoghra, Police Station Sarsiwa, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). R. t9 D R w f l‘tri a/ Versus RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh, Through : District Magistrate, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr.‘ Justice‘TP. Shanna, Judy: Criminal‘Appeal o; 884/2005 APPELLANTs N Heeralal Ranjam andwanothcr VERSUS REBPOIDENT State of Chhath'sgarh, ORDER Post fOI' 1410812008 \\ \ sd/~ “IIP. SHARM Judge r A N“ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISW AT BWPUR criminal Appeal No. 884/2005 7 VW 1. Hecralal Banjare, S/o Sun't Ram z Banjare, aged about 22 years. Jeetlal Banjam, S/o Sun't Ram Banjam, Aged about 20 years. Both am resident of Village Ghoghra, Police Station Samiwa, District Raipur ‘1‘ (Chhattisgarh). State of Chhatu'sgarh, Thmugh Disuict Mag'stxate, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). MEmo OF mun. UNDER smou 374 m OF THE can! or CRIMINAL pnocmwm. m (SB :Hon’hle In. T.P.8tnrma, J.) Present : shri Suryakant Mishra, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, PL. for the Statelrespondent ORDER {Passed on 14 [08/2008) 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of C(mviction an& order of sentence dated 6/9/2005 passed by the SecondAdditional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, in sessions Trial No. 258/2304 whereby kamed Second Addih‘onal Sessions Judge after holding the appellant No. 1 guilty £or die offence punishable under Seclions 450, 376, 506(8) and 314 of ate him Pena] Code sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/—, ligorous imprisonment for 7 years and dne of Rs. 500/- , rigotous imptisonment for 3 years and nne of Rs 300/- and ngorous inaprisonment for 5 years and fine of’Rs. 500/- in default of payment of &ne amount ad£tiona1 R.I. for~3 months, 6 months, 1 monthsnnd 3 months. Appellant No. 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced rigorous ‘ ‘ ‘ I” W imprisonnwnt for 5 years and &1e of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine additional RJ. for 3 months. 2. Iudgmmt and hding of convich‘on is challenged om the ground that without any rpliable and clinching evidence trial Court has convicted and smtenced the apprllants as aforeuwmioned. 3. Shri Suryakant Mishra, Advocate for the appellanw and Ms. Sangeeta /: K Mishra, PL. for the State/respondent axe heard. 4. udgment intpugxe nd'recor o trial Cour eruse. J dad f tpd 5. > Accor$ng to he cas o rosecuh'o eceased Santosh Bai nd her siste I t e f pn d i a r (PW2) Danba ere residing in their ouse a village Ghoghra, Plice Station hi w h t o saxsiwa District Raipux. Thei arents were u tatio for ei livelihood. I _ \ r p ot ofsn thr n r at m me y S m" wo d the yea 2004 e ti of Hol Festival deceased antoslu’ B h was age about 8 year a leepin ithe is W2 Dhanba n er-hous about 9 1 s ws sg wh‘r ster P i i he at p . Ae d H e d d io h w . m ppllant/ accuse eeralal came to hr house an entere nt me ouse d t r l a ct d l r an committed rape agains he wil nd onsen an also threatenedto kil he. A a resul ntercourse she conca‘ve. She tol to th appélant hen apellan s t of i d d e t pt treated her by hi friend appelnt No. 2 Ieetlal Barjare, and tn’ed to terminate s la the reglancy. Appellant Heeralal took prosecutrix t Bhatgaan die hospihl p a in of Dr. Sushmita. She treated her gain ayyellant took ha in ha lag She feels a Vile pain over her private part again she told to appellant Heeralal and agm appellant took her to Dr. Sushmita triesly then Dr. Sushmita advised to take treatment horn another hospital. Appellant left the pr‘osecutrix‘ at her village. 6. Lastly she called her father and told the story. She lodged the FIR on 20/5/2004 vide Ex. P-14A. She was sent for examinah'on to the Primary Health Centre Sarsiwa vide Ex. P~3 where she was examined by PW6 Dr. B. Chomsiya x vide Ex. R3. She complaints about pain in abdomn, abdoment was extended. She reffered to the gynecolog‘st vide Ex. P—4. She was treated in the Karodimal Govt. Hospital, Raigarh vide Ex. P-7 by PWS Dr. Anil Kumar Tirki where die was operated. Two wholes were found in her’intesh'ne and hstly she died on 25/5/20G. Her det was intimated to the police. Marg Ex. P— am P44 were 4 ah 9 d Ar um ’ e 8 Int a by >recorde. fte sming the witness vid Ex. P—1. ques of ded od of Santoshibai was prepared vide Ex. P-20. 7 d y ws st f y G Rh v P-3A . Dea bod a en or, autops to ovt. Hospital, aigr ide Ex. . Autops was ondcte Vi Ex. ’-13 by PW9 r .K. Meht. Death was due y cud & I D; V a to septicemia a esul o eritonitis a a resulof termination of penanc. Afte s a rt fp s t‘ rgy r investigan'on‘ charge-shee as hle befor the Judicia Mastratix s t w d e l geFst Ga, loda Ba wh tum committed th case t th Court o'5essi Ri Ba zar o in e o e fons apm; Learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer. . I order to esblish the guilt of the appelnt rosecution'xamine a 8 n u las ped s many as 12 itnesse. Examinah‘o of he accuse ecorde unde ection 13‘ o ws n‘ t d rd r E 3 f e f e y d e s the Cod o Criminal Procedur in which the enied m circumtance m a se d lai appearing against the nd fal implication an innocence cmed. 9. After affording the opportunity of earing o he parti$ leaned h t t Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants aforementioned. 10. Death of Santoshi'Bai is not disputed by the defence according to doctor death was as a result of septicemia due to peritonitis 11. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that in absmce of mmination of the victim Santoshi Bai appellant No. 1 cannot be fasten with the IiabiHty- of committing rape with her. There is no iota of evidmce to connect the appellant w L/f with crime in question. Evidence adducted by the prosecution is not suf&cient to convict the appellants for the offence aforemenh'oned. 12. In order to appreciate the complicity ofthe appellant No. 1 for the oHmce ' of rape prosecution has adduced drmimstamial, medical and documenmy evidence. PW2 Dhanbai is a sistei' of deceased Santoshi Bai who has stated that appellant Heeralal came to her house when she and ha sister Santoshibai were at house. Appellant ousted her ham the room of Santoshibai and he was inside the room of Santoshibai for an hour when he came out from the room, he threatened her that not to disclose the incident as a result of ttueat she and hm g sister did not disclose the inddent to any person. After some day Wham ha'fedler came thm she narrated the incident. After the incident both the appellants used 9’? I to come to her house and they injected and treated Santoshibai. 13. It is also stated that Santoshi Bai told her that appellant Heeralal has committed rape with her. Appellants used to threat her they took her sisler to village Bhatgaort PW4 Ghanaram who is a father of deceased Santoshibai has; 1 also stated that he and her wife went to the Bihar for their livelihood leaving Santoshbai and Dhanbai in the village when theyeame to that village they saw his daughter Santoshibagewas not well. There was swelling over abdomen she {gold thatappellant Heeralal has committed rape with her and appellant Ieetlal t!‘ used to neat her and provide medicines. He took Santoshibai to police Station Sarsiwa whae she lodged the FIR. She was shifted to Raigarh Hospital tor treatment where she died. PWS motha of Santoshibai, Smt. Shantlbai has not supported the case of prosecution in examination in chief. She was declared hostile but in her crossexamination she has supported the case of'prosecution. ’7 After the inddent Santoshibai died therefore, prosecution was not able to ad ~ JéfJJar \ @{. examine her but she had lodged the FIR Ex. P-14A. PW~11 Head Cmstabie Manoharlal Kanwar has state& that on the basis of report of Sanwshibai he has written FIR Ex. P—14A’ on the direch‘on of Station Incharge Shri LB. Singh. He has admitted in his (moss-examination that at the time of lodging of report Santoshibai was restless and he has written the FIR at the instance oi Shri LB. Singh Whom Shantoshibai has narrated the story. 14. PW2 Dhanbai has cross-examined at the length by the defense where she has supported the story-of prosecution and categorically stated that appellant 'Heeralal came to her house he was inside the room with Santoshibai for an hours. He threatened Santoshibai and her and afterwards appellant J'eedal used to treat Santoshibai but defence has not able to etidt anything in ha cross examination to establish that appellant Heeralal had not come to her house and not with Santoshi Bai inside the room for an hour and both the appellants has not > treated Santoshi Bai or had not took Santoshi Bai to Sarsiwa to village Bhatgaon for treatment and Santoshi Bai had not told her that appellant Heaalnl had committed rape with her. Deceased Santoshi Bai has lodged the FIR Ex. P-144A relating to commission of rape with her by appellant Heeralal which was duly proved by PW11 Manoharlal Kanwar. Lodgng of FIR is not substantially disputed by defence. Defence has not able to elicit anything in the cross examination of PW11 Manoharlal Kanwar to discredit his testimony or to make the FIR suspicious. Appellant Heaalal has not taken any defence that Santoshi Bai was consmh‘ng party. On the other hand PW2 Dhanbai has specifically stated that she and her sister were threatened by the appellant FIR Ex. P-14-A, Statement of PW2 Dhanbai, PW4 Ghanaram, PW5 Smt. Shantibai, PW11 Manoharlal Kanwar-are sufhdent for drawing infermce that appellant Heeralal ‘ra has committed sexual intercourse with Santoshibai against her will and he: consent 15. Prosecution has adduced the evidence relating to miscan‘iage of the 'Santoshi Baj, P‘W2 Dhanbai, PW3 Dr. Sushmih Iaiswal, PW4 Ghanaram, PWS Smt. Shamibai, I’W6 Dr. B. Chourasiya, I’W8 Dr. Anjl Kumm Tilki and I’W9 Dr. V.K. Mehm had deposed ihat Santoshi Bai was preg‘ant and lastly her pregnancy was terminated. Appellants took Santoshi Bai to Dr. Sushmita Iaiswal for several times. This fact are su$cient to establish that appellants tack Santoslti ai to different hospitals and even they treated and pregancy was terminated B n i.e. they caused miscarriage of Santoshi Bai. 16. Santoshi Bai died as a result of alleged treatmen temination of t and r preglancy. la 17. Prosecution has also adduced the evidmce to the effect that appelnt Heeralal completed cminal house trespass and committed rape which i ri s unishable with imprisonment for life and also threatned the Smtoshi Bai and p e her sister Dhanbai. 18. After appreciating he evidence availe on record learned Additional t lab ts ed Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellan as aformentione. Finding of trial Crt is based on reliable and credible evidence sient for ou uffic warran conviction. Learned Additioal Sessions Judge has not committed an t n y illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the appellants aforementioned. Appeal is without substance deserv& to be dismissed and hereby dismissed.