Y, _ ww“ ”W“ " ‘ . w. {% v NO QB/QKMYf' mm”: m 200 mm (ma) mam ammm WW§wW mmm $mm SE: i-iéWBLE §HRI §HiREiWgRA MZSHRA, J. . ”out 22 ysars, R/o. NPQV Shanna Floer MJH, Shardapara, Camp-i2, Ch‘nawani, PJS. Chbmmwi, District Burg, (CG) RESPWEENT Sate of Chilattisgarh, [Enough T.1.,.P.S. Cl’hawani, Distn'ct Durg (CG) ‘ 15-11-2oa7 - AF? gm J ’ _‘ LAI‘i’T‘S Jamaiuc‘idin, S/o Raijak Musalman, aged AIL; ’ ah VE“S"3 V Shxi Rajesh Jain, Advucate, for this aypeHagt. b‘ml weera} wlenta, ranci'Lawyer for tha State. 1 , 2. This criminai appeai 1s diracted against the judgnmnt of conviction and order of sentmi ce datsci Qlst Octobm‘, 2G0?) passed in 831‘. No. 15812004 whereby Rained 4'11 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg has convicted thti appeiiant uncier Sections 3‘76, 45C! anti 566 Part H of LRC, and scn‘iencc him to undergo RI. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000i— in default f payment of fine, to undergo R1. for one month; to undergo RI. years with fine of Rs. 2GGOI— and in undergo RI. for 1 year with fn e of Rs. 2000/‘ —, in defauit of payment, to undergo RJ. for two months respectiveiy. 3. The case of the prosec‘ tion in brief is that on the date of WW,WW;W am m m ww w $Wm r1:— forcibk sexual intercourse with hér. Aftar Committmg rape, he aiso U111 _ . 1161" .husband’s . .. reiuml "V hls . W. uuty at insertad knif€ in her vagina. 103C! p.m., the prosecutrix coil plained that she is suffering from :usband called Janki, Who took the stomach ache and bleeding. Her prosecuuix to r Bhjlai Hospital 'with the help of Villagers. The prosecntrix (licl not disclose about the incident to anyone; She narrated about the incident to Zler hhsbancl on the next clay who V informed the police and thereafer Dehati Nansm of Ex. P-lO was recorded in the Hospital on 12-3—2004. During investigation, ‘ were taken into possession from P—‘2'2 She was also sent for medical rma examined her and gave report of Ex. P—‘23. Vaginal slid-s, petticoat of the prosecutxix and finger nails and full pant of the ccnsed, seized during investigation, were sent for chemical examina' on to FSL, Raipur and report of the F‘SL, Rai‘pur is Ex. P—QG. After C mpleting investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. During trial, the examined 13 Witnesses in all and thereafter statement of the accu ed was recorded in which he denied the evidence appearing against him in the pro pleaded innocence and false ntioned in paragraph 1 of the /,A , judgment. lav treatment papers offlie prosecu' Ehjlai Hospital vide EX. examination Where Dr. Kalpan Sha secution case and ' lication. However, the triaLC‘ourt’ after hearing the cduiisel for the espectiveparties, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as / m ‘ p ie cwg ‘ m. 21%lékm5” mm ....................................I............... W200 mm (W) } m3s A %l 8 l QDDS" m 200 3mm (13W) mmm mmm waft—am Wmw§fséw €safmm duly comborated from the 6‘ \ had sustained injuries over her vagina. counsel for the parties. l have also peruséd‘ the record as also mJ 5‘ Conviction of me appe prosecutrix (PW. 5), her hm Madhumita Jain who has» 111C1f1€11L 9. It is true that the p1 incideni to her husband on h dieciose to the doctors who e) treatment arid disclosed alx next clay to her husband wl thereafter Dehah' Nalishi of l however taking into consider was committed by the appel injured after commission of prosecutrix that she was 111 disclose about the incident to to be just and convincing. T that. the accused came to her anal he threatened 'not to ”osecutrix did not disclose about the is return to home and even she did not :amined her on l i~3~2604 at the time of xut commission of Offence oniv on the 10 intimated the police on 126—2004, EX. P— 10 was recorded in the hospital, ation the manner in which the offence lant and the way the prosecutrix was rape, the explanation given by the ider shock and therefore, she did not anyone including her husband appears he prosecutrix has categon'caliy stated room, he was having knife in his hand committed rape with her a; shout and thereafter undressed and depcsai that the prosecutrix . ridence of Dr. Madhumita Jain who has '7. i have heard’ learned 3 impugned judgment. llant is baeed on the statement of the hand Bharatlal (RW. 3) and Dr. (Suit) examined the prosecutrix . after the :‘ter putting cloth in her mouth. The / GilPRI—FS/YE ~ 33" 200( ~50,000. ' WWW“ CH4 :......................... Mm 3)8)®05 . ....... L.H1200 m was (Wm WE§IW wawi‘m aw WW‘§WW $aif€mm argument that in Dehati Naimhi, it is mentioneii that ihe accusai put his hand in which he was can‘yjng knife in 11a vagina Whereas before fhe. Court she statsd {hat he pui km'fe m hsr vagina iS n01 of 'much importance which .‘nav impeach the credibihty' of the prosacutrix particuiarly in T111; light of the fact that her version is duly corroborated 1mm medicai t‘wicience as she has susiainsd injuries over her vagina and the dcctc‘r had 1‘spaired har vagina at the time of treatment and she remained in hospitai for a eonsiderabie period. From the defence taken Jay the appeliant by way 0f cross examination, ii appears that they“ had cordiai reian'ons and the appellant was frequent Visitor to the house of the prosecutrix, the pmsecumx has been subjected to 1engt‘hy cross-examination and she has stuck 10 her ciaim that ihe appeliant after committing rape had assauited her over her vagina. by knife Her husband Bharatlal (RW. '3) has aiso statee‘t that when 1e returned at about 10.06 pm. on the date of incident, he saw that s Wife was lying on the Iioor and biood was 002mg and she was co piaining stomach ache, thereafter he cahea Rambai Sahu and T mariai Sahu who took her to Bhiiai Hospital and admitted there and onvthe second. day at about 5.00 p.111. herwife narrated about e incident and thereafter he informed the poiice and investigation c mmeneed. The argument that nature of information given by the sband of prosecutrix has not been produced and proved during ‘ 'ai is a iatch of investigation however, the same is not of such grave nature that behes the entire prosecution stmy. The hives ’gating Officer DJ? Mishra (PW. 9L i ' i u 3 WW, W, mamam mwam %wfaa%amw5?&fg€rm twm CF «A. W %«2)2M‘- mm mzae swam (Wm para h o: the cross—gxamina has‘ mentioned that after receivmg mlormatmn from her hush 1d he proceEded‘ for hospital aftar altering his Ravamgi in the dajlv diam and t‘fhamafter Dehati N aiishi OI EX. P-lt‘) was recorded. Minor latches of investigation or discrepancies in the statemen . of the prosecutrix Wm not render the versmn OI the proe‘ecutn‘x unr liabie or untrustworthv on the basis o Winch total caSe of the prosecx tion couid be ciiscarcieci. the learneti counsel for the appeilant that the appeiiant is aged a‘ out 2‘2 years 01d boy anti, iherefore, sentence of Ri of 10 vears i‘ suitably reciuced. 11. However, consiiiermg 10. It was iaStiV' argued bV e manner in which the offence has been Committed by the app iiant, i am of the opinion that the sentence‘imposeé by the appe‘ ant is just and proper. 12. 111 the resuit', the app a} preferred by the appehant bein sm- Dhirendra Mishra 7* Judge Wlmout subsfance iS dismisse , k too excessive and the same may he g x n f