N ‘HE HIGH cou-R’I" o BILASPUR RIMINAL APPEAL No 30/ I20 H HATTISGARH A T blla ar kqk'f "h o M—a—ka—ta Ram Sa e aout 4 years R/ lla‘ tat P ca r Sion atan Distt. () Pohce rg' 1 » K V ER S' o attlsar rou S Patan Dlsti urg x. 1 y I i 4 I I T pt: C 06. Chhal Shu u / S/ h Agd b 5 o 'Vlge B‘oenda Dd U S State f Chhgh f Thgh P t D (C G ) tat’evo‘f ‘Chhat’tisgar S h ‘2,- case. Apart from this, three witnesses namely Shagunram Nishad, Thansingh Verma and Manrakhan (DW—1 to DW—3 respectively) were also examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellant of the charge under Section 3 (1) (12) and 3 (2) (5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. " 5. Heard counsel for the"parties and perused the material i available on record including the judgment impugned. Counsel for the appellant submits that present is a case of false-implication where on account of some village politics a bogus report has been lodged by the prosecutrix. She also submits that another reason for false implication of the accused is greed for money being paid by the Government as compensation to the rape victims belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe communities. She submits that the story put forth by the prosecutrix.:i": appearsto be so unnatural that under no circumstances it can be said to be worthy of any credence. Another submission of .the counsel for the appellant is that there is 11 days delay in lodging the V‘ FIR which'has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. She submits that a named FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix whereas she herself has stated in her Court statement that fo'r the first time she had seen the accused/appellant at the time of incident itself. She submits‘that the medical report also does not support the l/éiiw' case of the prosecution and that even the FIR has not been proved. \ 6. \ . l On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports l the judgment impugned and submits that the prosecutrix is a widow l 7. lady aged abut 65 years andtaking advantage of her helplessness R and pathetic condition the accused/appellant has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. He submits that as the prosecutrix has. I been medically examined 11 days after the incident and admittedly :she is an old lady having children and grand children, the medical report is bound to be negative. Delay in lodging the report has been x N \ \ @‘I explained by the prosecutrix stating that as she was threatened by the accused/appellant, it could not be lodged promptly. 8. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident when she was 'sleeping in her house, accused/appeHant came therersat on her chest and when she woke up and pushed him up, he asked her not to push him. The accused also told this witness that he had come to her on the instructions of one Daua Ram (PW-3). Thereafter, he inserted a piece of cloth in her mouth, pressed her neck and after upturning her sari committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She has stated that due to insertion of a pl‘éc‘e of cloth, she could not raise hue and cry‘ She has stated that while the accused was running away, his key had fallen near her doorstepfAcco‘fdin'gto her, the accused had also threatened her of life in Case shexdisclosed the incident to anyone. Then after picking up the key of the appellant she went to the house of Daua Ram (PW-3) which is situated adjacent to her house and narrated the entire incident to him. Thereafter, the prosecutrix went to the house , of O'neLaxman but did not narrate the incident to him on account of: fear. Meanwhile, Daua Ram (PW—3) came to the house of Laxman making a search for her and asked for the key, of the accused/appellant which she had refused. However, on further /4’ insistence by Daua Ram (PW-3), she handed over the key to him. " According to this witness, she had narrated the incident to one ,l Dularu, Sunita — the Sarpanch of the village, Paarma, Atma, Neerchand and Ramswarup, 10-12 days after the incident and then the report was lodged After lodging of the report the prosecutrix ' was sent for medical examination to District Hospital Durg According to this Witness at the relevant time she was a Widow aged about 7O years and that her earlier two husbands have expired. She has stated that even' her children and grand children have got married. She has however admitted that the incident was not disclosed by her to anyone immediately. She has also admitted that near her house other villagers are also residing and if she had cried, the people of his neighborhood could have heard the same. She has stated that she is getting the pension meant for the poor and helpless persons and she has no other source of income. According -Q- to her, she was not aware of the money being given to the rape victims belonging to scheduied caste and scheduied tribe communities but the viilage Sarpanch had recommended her matter for the same. She has stated that she came to know about the accused/appellant only after the incident and it is on that day itself she had seen him for the first time. Smt. Sunita Yadav (PW—2) is the Sarpanch of the village along with whom the prosecutrix had gone to lodge the report who had issued the caste certificate to the prosecutrix in the capacity of Sarpanch. Daua Ram (PW—3) has stated that the prosecutrix belongs to Satnami caste but he knows nothing about any offence havmg been committed on her This Witness has further stated that 5 6 months back when he was at home, the prosecutrix had come to her and informed him that the accused/appellant had committed rape on her and then he had asked to go and inform the incident to other people of the village. Thereafter, he had gone to the house of one Laxman in search of the prosecutrix to get the key of the motorcycle of the accused/appellant. Neerchand (PW—4) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Dr. S.R. Churendrai': (PW-5) who had medically examined the accused/appellant has stated that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. M.D. Tiwari (PW—6) SDO (P) is the witness who has done part of the investigation. Laxman (PW10) in whose house the prosecutrix was sitting has stated that key of the motorcycle of the accused/appellant .1 -' l was with the prosecutrix and when Daua Ram had demanded the / // same, she had handed it over to him. Dr. (Smt.) Kalpana Sharma / \ (PW—13) who had medically examined her has categorically stated in her cross examination that no definite opinion regarding rape on her could be given and no injury on her body was noticed by her. 9. Aforesaid factual configueration thus goes to show that the statemet of the prosecutrix and the manner in which she had depicted the story creates a doubt in the mind of this Court. Secondly, 11 days unexplained delay in lodging the FIR also creates a doubt regarding truthfulness of the story given by the prosecutrix. Moreover, statement of the prosecutrix that after commission of the offence she got the key of the motorcycle belonging to the i i i ‘i ‘“$T. accused/appellant which was demanded by him but she refused to give the same to him and then the statement of Daua Ram and Laxman again creates a doubt in the mind of this Court. Prosecutrix has stated in her evidence that white sitting on her chest, the accused had informed her that he had come to commit the offence as was asked by Daua Ram again appears to be unnatural as Daua Ram has not stated any such thing. Keeping in mind the entire story brought forth by the prosecutrix, conviction of the appeliant as above does not appear to be a well founded approach. r We ' 10. e Consequently,~the“appeal-is allowed: Judgment impugned coi’tvToting and sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned g above is set aside. He is acquitted of the charges levelled a£ga’tJ him. lgle be setfree if not wanted in any other casel Sd/_ l Pritinker Diwaker I: Judge / 1 l @