Criminal Aggeal No. ....4...?.i?.../2004 Hemendraraj alias Raja Sahu, aged 26 years, occupation grocer fXCewQci t? ’Son of W1“ 3%. Gugbqghahkqa . UUA w Resident of Panch CUM/LL” P4Q u‘wwd (Accused) &J°%%é%e 5% of Chhattisgarh \ s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT I SPUR Criminal Aggeai No. 428/2004 Hemendm Raj @ Raja Sahu Vs. Sm‘re of Chhqf'risgnrh, Criminal Aggeai ga.482/2004 6amesh Soni \ Vs. S‘rm’e of Chha‘rfisgarh Singie Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. 1&1108-2066 —JVMiAw l— Raosaheh Deshmukh Judge Post for: Duip Sd \ H16H CQURT OF CHHATTISéARH AT BILAsPUR Cr‘amimi Appeal Na. 42$/2004 Hamendm Raj (‘3 Rqja Sahu Vs. 5mm cf Chhm‘risggrh; \ £rimim£ Appaai Nc‘4SZ/2004 {variesh 50rd Vs‘ 5mm af Chha‘Hisgarh Sirigie Bench: Hcn‘bk 5hr? Dilip Racwheb D@shmukh, J. ?r*2$grrri Srm". Fouzia Mirza, learned wunsef for“ The appeHan‘r Hemendr‘a Rqj @ iQaJa Sahu‘ Shri Eajaev $hrivasfwa, learneci counsei for fhe appellanf Ganesh 5&313, Shri Ashish §huk§q, legmzd 6A far 1’he Sm‘i'e. J U D Q 5A E N T {Qeiivered on DgifLd‘ay of Augusf 2006) Thig jgdgmam‘ ghaii ggvem Crimm! Appeal No.428/2004 by Hammdm QQJ @ Qajq 3am arid Criminal AppealxNo,482/ZOO4 by Gangsh Sam. l 2. 5wh “fkg afargsaid appeals are dirgc'rgd against Tha judgmen‘r dm‘gd 12—Q4m2004 daiivarad by Shri T.P.Sharmn, Special Judge & Addi?iomi Sasgimg Judge, burg in 5paciql Case No.121/2003. ix; U). ppéHcmT Hemendm Raj @ Raja was canvicted under Szc‘rions-365, eé, 3:42 cmé 3?$ Qf IPC arid was sen'tencgd +0 undergo Rigorous impraigammwf far 3 ygars each’ under Sections—365, 366 of fhe IPC md w riggmus imprismmen‘f far 6 mnn‘fhs undar Szc‘rion—342 of IPC avid w rEgésmug: impriscrimen'? far 7 year's under Szc‘rion-376 of IPC. Appgi§§$f (évizngg‘h 50m was convicted under Secficns-365, 366 and gm: '3 II" a? l‘ IE‘C 5 mm l was also sznmncgd “f0 Lindergo rigarous imprisonmenf iggr 3 yeaar$ mch 'fQr Th3 offemas under Sec‘i'ion-3é5, 3:66 0f The IPC {mu h; ugumu: imprigunman‘? fQr’é monthg undar $ec‘tion—342 of IPC. m £e35wi‘gfxca$ wgra arderad fa run conSecu‘rively, LO‘- ha fuzfuul mafrix. in brief i$ Thm‘ on 08-08-2003‘ fhe umsggufrix, imiimgmg f0 ‘rhe Sghgduied Tribe, aged abauf 22 years r i M‘s ggiug ‘m madma! $hgp f9 buy medicines a? abou'r 8.15 P’M. The uDpQilawfz; came: fmm bghind and. farcibly abducted har on o. scooter rm} (wk haw Tc: The hQusa of appeliqnf Hemendm Rqj in Pmchshael Nugur, Chi Bhiiai, Disfrio‘E-Durg. She was confined inside The room. :5i'upeiiem Hememdm goj oommif‘i‘ed rape Twice on The prosecu‘i’rix. Durimg ii‘ivegi’gm‘ion, i'i' was revealed The? one Shrawan was also ueeen? u? The hou5e of The oppelianf Hemendm Raj who olongwifh ash efood oufeide while +he prosecufrix was rovished by eggeiiorrf Hemei’idm llaj, When The prosecufrix offemp‘red f0 shout fhe ogirieiion‘r Hemendro Raj hem her and pressed her Throat A1 ohoui’ 3 AM“ appellant Hemendm Raj Took her on o scoo‘l'er and Ief'l' ler in Budh Vihar, {Iharoda on The main road and fhreafened her fha‘l’ f dim repo‘rfea‘ 'fhe mo'l’fer he would kill her, Being under panic, while rewrning home of 3.30 AAA. she mef Aamog Thapa PW-Z, Gorkha £howi<idor on way oho‘ mrro‘ied ihe inoidenf fo him while requesting him 'i‘o drop her home. Aoihos Thapa PW-Z Took The prosecu'l’rix 'ro her home iii Charodo where she norra‘l‘ed ‘l'he incidenf To her anxiously waiTihg worried moTher SmT. Tulsi Singare PW-8 and broTher Shri Prakoeh Singare PW-9, FlvR. was lodged by The prosecuTrix aT 10.30 AM on 09-08—2003 aT Police STaj‘ion-Bhilai-3 vide EXP-5. Sub ‘// so ,. H u‘LxF éziim’li a? W Inspecfor‘ Ashok Joshi PW-6 seized Raj 'rwo bed shee'rs having semen like sfains fram The bed mom of The house of appellan‘r Hemendm Raj, one blue underwear worn by The nppeHanT Hemendm Rqj aT The Time 0f occurrence having semen like sTains and one L.M~L. SeooTer bearing RegisTreTion No.M.P.-24I‘EVB./9266 on 09-08-2003 aT 07.55 PM. vide Ex.P—10. One ChocolaTe coloured 5alwar having semen like sTains was seized from The prosecuTrix vide Ex.P-12 on 09—08—2003 aT 09.30 P.M.. 4, The prosecuTrix was examined by Dr.SmT. PraTibha Dani PW-3 on 09-08-2003 aT 7 PM. who found no evidence of any injury over her body or her privaTe par-Te. The vagina admiTTed one finger easily. UTerus was normal in size. Her lasT mensTrual period had commenced on 16m of July. Two vaginal slides were prepared, sealed and handed over To ConsTable SanTosh Singh for paThological examinaTion. No definiTe opinion could be given abouT recenT sexual inTercourse wiTh The prosecuTrix. The vaginal slides were seized vide EXP-2 fr‘o‘m ConsTable SanTosh Singh. AppellanT Hemendra Raj @ Raja was medically examined by Dr. S.N.Choubey PW-4 on 11-08—2003 aT 11.25 AM. He foundno exTernal injury over his body and geniTals. Smegma was presenT under prepuse and over The glans penis. IT was opined ThaT The appellanT Hemendra Raj was capable of performing sexual inferebuase Though presence of smegma suggesTed ThaT sexual inTercour-se was noT performed wiThin a period of 48 hours prior To medical 'examina‘rion. 5, Blue coloured underwear and Two bed sheeT were examined by Dr. SN. Choubey PW-4 while Dr. SmT PraTibha Dani PW—3 examined The Salwar and encircled The sTains presenT on These arTicles and advised chemical examinaTion for confirmaTion of semen. A cerTificaTe o/ EXP-15 showing Thaf The prosecufr'ix beionging 'ro The Scheduled Tribe, was also seized during invesfigm'ion. The aforesaid ar‘ticles were serif far chemical analysis 'ro The F.S.L. along wiTh The memo EXP-2c: of The Senior SuperinTendenT of Police' Durg daTed 25-08- 2003. Vida reporT EXP-19 dcxTed 27-01-2004, presence of semen and human spermaTozoa was confirmed on boTh bed sheeTs, underwear of The appelian'r as aiso on The Salwar and vaginal slides of The prosecuTrix. An ossifieaTion TesT for deTerminaTion of The age of The prosecu‘i'rix was conducTed‘ Dr. A.K.Sahu PW-12 opined fhaT she was i g aged above 19 years AfTer compleTion of invesfigaTion, appellanTs Hemedra Raj & Ganesh were prosecuTed for The offences under SecTion-376(Z)(6), 365, 342, 366, 506-3 of The IPC and 3 (2X5) of Scheduled CasTe and Scheduled Tribes, (PrevenTion of ATrociTies) AcT, 1989. 6, BoTh The appellan'rs abjured The guilT. AppellanT Hemendra Ra] in his examinaTion under SecTion-313 of Cr.P,C, sToTed ThaT he had never commiTTed sexual inTercourse wiTh The prosecuTrix who had falsely implicaTed him. AppellanT Ganesh also pleaded innocence and false implicaTion by The prosecuTrix. Mukesh Dongre D.W‘-1 <34 Jaggu @ Jageshwar D.W.—2 were examined by The defence who sTaTed ThaT on The nighT of 08% of AugusT, 2003 aT abouT 8.30 P.M., The prosecuTrix was seen in fronT of The Kirana Shop of The appellanT Hemendra Raj @ Rqja compelling him Tomarry her failing which she ThreaTened To falsely implicaTe him. IT was alsovsTaTed ThaT The prosecuTrix was shouTing and abusing The appellanT Hemendra Raj who nepeaTeclly said ThaT his parenTs were noT aT home. Upon being advised aT abouT 9.15 PM‘ The prosecuTrix wenT away while abusing The appellanT Hemendra Raj AppellanT ThereafTer closed The shop. . T scen/er /‘V/:VV @é y, Sm'f, Fouzia Mirzq, Iacxmed coungel for- fhe appellqm‘ Hemendm Raj argued fha‘t 'i‘he Tesfimony of fhe pr0$zcufrix PW-7 in para-3 ($1 4 leH no mom far any doub‘f Thuf sexual infercourse if any, commif‘fed by fhe oppzllcxm‘“ Hemendm Rcq was wholly wi'rh her‘gonsen'r as she nei‘i‘he’r mi5ad (my alarm while she was being brough‘r on a scoofer by “the appelian‘rs nor while she was being ravished. Her Tesfimony 'fha‘r afier' commi‘i'fing sexual infer-course wi‘i'h her, appelIanT Hemendm Rqj wen‘r outside The hause and appellan'f and Shmwan were laughing and affer- haif an hour appellan'r Hemendr-a Raj again enfered 'rhe mom and commi‘rfed rape on her, ciearly goes To show 1’ha'r she neiiher- resisied during 1he sexual infercourse nor shamed for help while she was being ravished or while she was alone after rape on her for fhe firsT Time. I‘r was also confended fhai’ medical evidence of Dr. Mrs. Praiibha Dani PW-3 'i'ha‘l' no definiie opinion aboui recent sexual in'iercourse could be given and no exfernal or infernal injury was found on iihe prosecutrix also rendered The Testimony of The prosecuTrix doubTful. Reliance was placed on Prafag Misfire and ofhers Vs. 5mm of arissa reporTed in AIR-1977-5.C—1307 while conTending ThaT due To absence of any injury on The prosecuTrix clearly showed ThaT she did noT puTup any resisTance To The alleged sexual acT commiTTed by The accused-appellanT Hemendra Raj and The only irresTible inference To be drawn Therefrom was ThaT she was a consenTing parTy. IT was oonTended ThaT The TesTimony of The defence wiTnesses clearly revealed ThaT since The appellanT Hemendra Raj refused To marry The proseouTrix, she falsely implicaTed him. Several omissions in The firsT informaTion reporT lodged by The'prosecuTrix were poinTed ouT while referring To The TesTimony of The prosecuTrix in para-3 di 4. IT was also conTended ThaT her TesTimony in para-9 6i 10 lefT no room for any Mi. [J’V~i i i f doubf Thm‘ The lccalify from which fhe prosecufrix was nHeged *0 have been abduc'red is a busy bcali‘l'y having ‘rhorough fare and the facf Thuf The prosecu‘rrix did no? raise any alarm while she was bemg carried on a scoo‘rer was also indica‘l'ive of 'rhe facf fha‘i' she voluntarily wenl‘ wi‘rh fhe appellan‘l's. Lastly, if was canfended Tha'r Aamos Thapa PW-Z, a vi‘ral link in The prosecu‘rion case did no‘r suppor‘l‘ The prosecu’rion s-rory. On 1'hese premises, i‘r was urged Tha‘r conviction and sen‘renoe awarded by 1he learned Trial Judge To appellanT Hemendra Raj was liable To be seT aside. 8. 5hri Rajiv ShrivasTava, learned counsel for The appellanT Ganesh emphaTically argued ThaT appellanT Ganesh was falsely implicaTed. Referring To The TesTimony of The prosecuTrix in para-1, iT was urged ThaT none of The facTs emerging in The TesTimony of The prosecuTrix in para 1 againsT appellanT Ganesh were menTioned by her in The F.I.R. Ex.P-5. IT was argued ThaT appellanT Ganesh was noT even known To The prosecuTrix and had been falsely implicaTed by her since he was friendly wiTh The appellanT Hemendra Raj. 9. On The oTher hand, Shri Ashish Shukla, learned GOVT. AdvocaTe M4 argued ThaT The TesTimony of The prosecuTrix regarding her abducTion, wrongful cmfinemenT by The appellanTs and forcibe sexual inTercourse commiTTed by The appellanT Hemendra Raj was duly corroboraTed by The reporT of F.5.L. and also by The TesTimony'of SmT. Tulsi Singare PW-8 and Shri Prakash Singare PW-9 To whomrThe prosecuTrix had narraTed The incidenT on reTurning home wiTh Aamos Thapa PW-Z The Gorkha Chowkidar. IT was urged ThaT The evidence of above wiTnesses as also The facTs menTioned in The F.I.R. clearly goes To show ThaT V'Aamos Thapa PW-Z had given false evidence. Reliance was placed on , x Ra " arika Vs. fare f A: In reported in 1998-SCC (Criminal)-1725 and Sfafe af P ‘ab s if 5' I: rand of/rers repomd in 1996-volum—2-scc-3a4 and Vis'imu Alias undrya Vs Sfafe of Maharashfr-a reported in @006) 1—5CC (Criming!) 217 while contending *hn‘r The Tesfimony of 'rhe prosecufrix was whoiiy reliabie since she would no? have faisely implioafed fhe appellqnis had she volunmrily accompanied ihem or consented To ‘rhe sexual infarcourse commi‘Hed by ‘rhe appellant Hemendm Raj. The prosecuTr-ix did no? bear any grudge or had any mafive to falsely implicaTe The appellan'rs. The lesfimony of defence witnesses was merely an afterthought since the prosecutrix was not confronted with the presence of defence witnesses. No suggestion was put to her in cross examination regarding the facts deposed by the defence witnesses. Lastly, it was contended that absence of injuries on the prosecutrix was wholly explained by her since the appellant Hemendra Rd] had committed sexual intercourse with her on the bed inside his house. 10. Having considered rival submissions, I have perused the record of Special Case No.121/2003 with utmost circumspection. The law if a relating to appreciation of evidence of the prosecutrix is now well settled. In State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh (Supra), the Apex Court observed as under- “ The Courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such Which are of fatal nature, be allowed to / ~ Mi“ . Throw out an ofherwise relinble prosecufion case. The inheren‘r bashfulness of fhe females and The fendency f0 conceal oufrage of sexual aggression are factors which The cour'rs should nof overlook. The ‘resfimony of The victim in such cases is vi‘ral and unless ‘There are compelling reasons which necessi'l'a're looking for corroboration of her sla‘remen'r, fhe cour‘rs should find no difficul'ry To acT on The TesTimony of o vicTim of sexual assaulT alone To convicT an‘ accused where her- TesTimony inspires confidence and is found To be reliable. Seeking corroboraTion of her sTaTemenT before relying upon The same, as a rule, in such cases amounTs To adding insulT To injury. Why should The evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molesTaTion be viewed wiTh doubT, disbelief or suspicion? The courT while appreciaTing The evidence of a prosecuTrix may look for some assurance of her sTaTemenT To saTisfy iTs judicial conscience, since she is a wiTness who is inTeresTeol in The ouTcome of The charge levelled by her, buT There is no requiremenT of law To insisT upon corroboraTion of her sTaTemenT To base convicTion of an accused. The evidence of a vicTim of sexual assaulT sTands almosT aT par wiTh The evidence of an injured wiTness and To an exTenT is even more reliable. JusT as a wiTness who has susTained’ some injury in The occurrence, which is noT found To be self-inflicTed, is considered To be o good wiTness in The sense ThaT he is leasT likely To shield The real culpriT, The evidence of a vicTim of a sexual offence is enTiTled To greaT weighT, absence of corroboraTion noTwiThsTanding. CorroboraTive evidence is noT an imperaTive componenT of judicial credence in every case of rape. CorroboraTion as a condiTion for judicial reliance on The TesTimony of The prosecuTrix is noT a requiremenT of law buT a guidance of prudence under given circumsTances. IT musT noT be overlooked ThaT a woman or a girl subjecTed To sexual assaulT is noT an accomplice To The. crime buT is a vicTim of anoTher person’s lusT and iT is improper and undesirable To TesT her evidence wiTh a cerTain amounT of suspicion, TreaTing her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have To be drawn from a given seT of facTs and circumsTances wiTh realisTic diversiTy and noT dead uniformiTy leasT ThaT Type of rigidiTy in The shape of rule of law is inTroduced Through a new form of TesTimonial Tyranny making jusTice a casualTy. CourTs cannoT cling To a fossil formula and insisT upon corroboraTion even if, Taken as a whole, The case spoken of by The vicTim of sex crime sTrikes The judicial mind as probable." e _/r 11. ’In Ranji? Hazarika Vs. S'l'a're of Assam reporfed in 1998- Supreme Cour-1' Cases (Criminal) 1725 (Supra), The max Cour'r referred To Gurumif Singh (supra) while holding Tha'r if fhe evidence of fhe prosecu‘rrix inspires confidence, her Tesfimony cannof be rejected merely on The ground of absence of corrohora'fion by medical opinion. If was held 1'ha'r since her Tesfimony was amply corroborai'ed by her fa‘lher and mofher 1'0 whom she had immedia‘l'ely informed abou‘r The occurrence convic'rion of The appellanT under 5ecTion-376 of IPC was well meriTed. 12. In Vishnu 9 Undrya Vs. STaTe of Maharashtra reporTed in 2006) 1 SCC (Cri.) 217, iT was held by The Apex CourT ThaT a. medical wiTness called in as an experT To assisT The CourT is noT a wiTness of facT and The evidence given by The medical officer is really of an advisory characTer given on The basis of sympToms found on examinaTion. The medical opinion was merely To assisT The CourT and was of an advisory characTer and noT binding on The wiTness of facT. IT was held ThaT since The Testimony of The prosecuTrix was naTural, inspired confidence, meriTed accepTance and was also corroboraTed by The faTher and moTher of The prosecuTrbg convicTion o The appellanT under SecTion~376 of The IPC was well meriTed. A 13. In The case of Vishnu @ Undray (Supra), The Apex CourT observed as under: “The sTaTemenT of The prosecuTrix, in our view, is quiTe naTural, inspires confidence and meriTs accepTance. In The TradiTional non-permissive bounds of socieTy of India, no girl or woman of self-respecT and digniTy would depose falsely, i implicaTing somebody of ravishing her chasTiTy by sacrificing j and jeopardizing her fuTure prospecT of geTTing @ied wiTh/ Ne /// f , § a suimble mafch. No’r only would she be sacrificing her future prospecf of ge'Hing married and having family life, buf also would invite The wrafh of being osfracized and cas'r out from The sociefy she belongs To and also from her family circle. From fhe statement of the prosecutrix, it is revealed that the accused induced her to a hotel by creating an impression that his wife was admitted in the hospital. On the pretest of going to Nanawati Hospital, he took her to ahotel, took her inside a room, closed the door of the room, threatened her to finish her if she shouted and then forcibly ravished her sexually. In our view, o clear case of rape, as defined under Section-375 clause thirdly IPC has been established against the accused. It is now a well settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. “ 14. Scanning the evidence of the prosecutrix on the above touchstone. I find that her testimony that appellant Ganesh gagged her mouth and forcibly seated her con the scooter driven by the appellant Hemendra Raj and both the appellants took her to the house of appellant Hemendra Raj is wholly worthy of credence. It is true that the prosecutrix did not narrate in the FIR. that the appellant Ganesh had pulled her after holding her hand, had forcibly seated her on the scooter, had gagged her mouth and pressed both her feet with his legs but it is well settled that first information report is not an encyclopedia of the entire facts constituting an offence. The prosecutrix did mention in the FIR, Ex.P—5 that she was forcibly taken by the appellants on the scooter to Panchsheel Nagar to the house of appellant Hemdendra Raj where she was confined in the room. Considering the amount of mental trauma undergone by the prosecutrix and amount of shock and insult, it could not be expected of her to divulge each and every overt act of the appellants in the FIR. The same logic applies to para-3 6g 4 of the testimony of the prosecutrix in which she has given a detailed description aboutthe a MW Til manner in which appellan‘r Hemendm Rqj sa‘risfied his lust while commif‘ring rape on her affer- undressing her and Therenf'ren repeated fhe sexual ac? again affer somefime. In ‘rhe F.I.R., 1‘he prosecui’rix had dearly menTioned Thnf fhe appeHanT Rnja had commif'fed rape on her fwice, She made no efforf *0 falsely implica're appellan‘r Ganesh in sexual assault on her ei‘rher in The FIR. or in her iesiimony. However, her iesfirnony clearly shows 'rha'r while she was under confinemen‘r and being ravished by Hemendra Raj, fhe appellan‘r Ganesh was presen'i' oufside. IT was he who a'r abou‘r 3 AM. asked Hemendra Raj ‘l‘o leave The prosecuTrix while saying “W W alllEl’N 3Tl3ll “. 15, The argumenf Thai fhe fesfimony of ‘rhe prosecu‘rrix was unreliable since she did no‘r resis‘i‘ or raise any alarm while she was being ravished canno'r be accepfed. The prosecu‘rrix clearly sfa'red in para«3 fhai' while she was being ravished by ihe appellanf Hemendra Raj, she Tried fo resis1' bu? appellan‘r Hemendra Raj bea‘r her and pressed her throat Her silence during The period while 1'he appellan‘i Hemendra went away affer ‘I‘he firsT sexual ac‘r is also well explained since the prosecutrix stated that she was crying at that time while the appellants were loudly laughing outside. One can well imagine the trauma, fear, shock and insult after her privacy having been violated by the appellant HemendraRaj who along with the appellant Ganesh stood outside the room where she was crying. It cannot be ruled out that the hapless prosecutrix who was under fear and was disturbed emotionally and psychologically, kept crying instead of raising an alarm. I 16? In para-7, the prosecutrix has clearly stated that she did not bleed from the vagina which is also explained by the testimony of o E Dr. Sm‘l'. Prcmbha Dani PW-3 That prior To The date of occurrence, fhe prosecu‘l‘rix mighf have had experienced sexual intercourset If is oiso To be borne in mind That The prosecuTrix was undressed and rovishzd on The bed inside The house of oppeilcmT Hemendm Rqi which explains The absence of injury on her. There is no ioTn of doubT ThaT Aomos Thopo PW-Z had given false evidence before The CourT since The prosecuTrix in The FIR ’iodged soon efTer The occurrence had cieariy menTioned ThaT a‘l’ obouT 3 AM. efTer she was dropped by The appeIIanT Hemendrcx Raj on o ecooTer near Budh Vihar, Chorodo, she had meTrThe Gurkha Chowkidar and narraTed The incidenT To him. The TesTimony of Tulsi Singare PW-B and Prakash Singare PW-9 also corroborates The TeeTimony of The prosecuTrix ThaT she reTurned home aT abouT 3‘30 AJVL wiTh one Gorkha Chowkidar and narraTed The enTire incidenT To Them’ The TesTimony of The prosecuTrix is Thus wholly corroboraTed by her moTher ’SmT, Tulsi Singare PW—8 and broTher Pmkash Singare PW-9 To whom she narraTed The lincidenT immediaTely afTer reTurning home aT 3 AM. If The prosecuTrix had volunTarily accompanied The appellanTs on a scooTer To The house of The appellanT and consenTed Hemendra Raj To The sexual inTercourse com’miTTed’by The appellanT Hemendra, There was no-need for her eiTher To complain To her moTher and broTher immediaTely ThereafTer on peTurning home or To lodge FIR soon ThereafTer aT P,5. Bhilai—3. Durg. If The prosecuTrix was a consenTing parTy she would noT have done any such Thing. The prosecuTrix was crossexamined by The appellanT Ganesh only To show ThaT she did noT know him prior To The occurrence. There is no maTerial on record To show ThaT The prosecuTrix bore any grudge or had’any moTive To falsely implicaTe The appellanT Ganesh or Hemendra. )2, 15 17. The fes‘l‘imony of fhe defence wi'rnesses is cieariy an afterthought Presence of Mukesh Dongre DW—l & Jaggu @ Jageshwar- DW—2 was no? pu'r To +he prnsecu‘rr-ix during cross examination. She was nn’r asked if she had gone +0 kimnn shop of appellant Hemendm 'ro compel The qppellon‘r Hemendm Raj Ta marry her. There is no mafehial on record To show 'rho‘l' ‘H'Ie appellant Herhendro Raj and the prosecutrix were on meeting terms or in love with each other or that the appellant Hemendra Raj had promised to marry her, This has been categorically denied by her in her cross examination. It does not appeal to reason that a young unmarried girl who did not know the appellant Hemendra and had no prior relationship with him (as divulged by her testimony in para-15), would go to the shop of appellant Hemendra at night and compel him to marry her and threaten to falsely implicate him. In a tradition bound non-permissible society, the prosecutrix would not depose falsely to implicate the appellants for abducting her and to implicate the appellant Hemendra Raj for ravishing her chastity by sacrificing and Jeopardizing her future prospects of getting married with a suitable match; Relying upon theobservations made by the Apex Court in case Vishnu @ Undray (Supra), I am of the considered opinion that statement