CF0000062048 _ , . . L‘ainalég l Em‘gz r r ‘r. Q M . 13; £N THE HIGH COURT OF J‘UDICATURE AT’JABALPUR, Criminal . Appea} No. gVGQ /1999 APPELLANT Q?” u I), Jana €33 anna : ‘, J Janardan s/o Lachh aged about 25 yéars, r/Q Po Kholi.i>.5. Station Torba, B‘ilaspur,’ M.P. tSr Distt. ifs. State of M.Pa through Police Station Torba,‘Distt. Bilaspur5M.?. MINAL PROCED D URE COE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IAT'HSW AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITI R DIW R CR.A.N0. 868i 1999 Jana @ J.Janatdhan APPELLANT V€I3u§ RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh ‘ Shn' Vivek Shn'vastava, counsel for the appellant. u ’3 Shri Neeraj Mehta, P.L. for the Stats. o APPLICATION ws 374 (21 OF THE expo. ‘ JUDGMENT c, ‘ A * (17.03.2010) Thi§ appeal arises out of the judgment damd 19.3.99 passed by [the Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur in Session Tnal No. 136/97 convicting tho accused/appellant ’ for the 0&‘ence punishable under Sections 354 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. ’v 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.2. 1997, FIR Ex.P/ 1 was lodged by the pmsecutn'x (P.W.-1) aged about 8 yeais, alleging in it that on 24.2.97, a thorn was {nicked on her thumb. and when she requested her mother to take out ' the same, her mother had asked her to go-and take the help of the accused/appellant who was her neighbour. When the I prosecuu'ix went to the accused/appellant he took her to another house and removed her undergarment and nied to commit rape on her whereupon she started weeping. :After i investigation, challan was tiled against the s i accused/appellant for the oh‘ence under Section 376 of the IPC and he was tried for the said ofence by the trial Court. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also ‘ ‘ recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal S ;, Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against J him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. n}a ‘ 3K 4. After hearing th€ paties, thE tn'al Court has acquitted thte accusedjappe ant ‘for The offence under Section 376 of the IPC but has convicted him for the oEence under Section 354 of the {PC and “sentenced him with rigorous imprisonment for one year Hence this appeal. 5. Contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been faisely imph'cated in the present case as ‘there was some dispute between the appeihnt and the mother of the prosecut‘n'x. He iimiher submits that present is an unfortuna’re case Where the prosecutrix, a minor, who has been used by her mother to settle an 01d score. 6.‘ On the other hand, it has been argued by the State counsel that the impugned judgment is strictly in A accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the. He i V further sn‘bmits that even the F‘SL report is positive, 7 I have heard counsel for theparties; Prosecutn'x (P.W.-l) aged about 8 years has categorically stated that on the date of incident a thorn was pricked on her thumb and when she requested her mother IL to take out the same her mother had asked her to take the help of the accused/appellant who was her neighbour; She has stated that when she had gone to the accused aPPellant he comPelled her to wait for sometime and then askea her to accompany hon and took her to another house and after bolting the house from inside, removed her underwear and tried to commit rape on her and thereafter she was threatened by the accused/ apnellant not to disclose about the same to her parents. She has stated that then she was driven OE by him from the back door and when she returned from the tution at about 8.00 g pm. she felt pant on her private part and then she narrated ,r the entire incident to ,her mother but as her father was not at home, on the next day FIR (EXPI 1) was lod ged. 8. In the cross examination this Witness was very firm. However she has stated that there was some disnute between the appeilant and her mother but yet her mother é has decided to lodge the renort and thereafter the i)rosecutrix 10d ed the renort. t 1V? . 9. Gunjan Baj (PW—2) mother qf ths prqsecutrix as also suppor’kéd the prosecution case. Gorelal {PV. famer the proswiltrix While supportmg the“ proswution case has categOIically stated, that when he rammed &o Korba, the entira mcidsnt was Ilarratsd to him by his Wife Gunjn Bai and then 1 mpot was 10c{.g€d on t naX day. Dr. K11. S. Rae {P..—4} ‘ j hs a tac t e > (EVA—5:; who ha} also examined the prosecut’rix s sted ‘ that no éeniie onion cai1 be given about the commission c W ad who had exammed te prosecutiix has found 110 inmy on t private pait of the prosecutrix nd has sed hat her hymei} was intact. Dr. Smt. Shaili Palidy ha ta of reqae on ”L'he proseut‘rix. Dr. P. C. @upta (P..-7) who h examined th accused! appellant has siated in his evidence mt he was capale of erforng sexual intercourse. « i0. ara (P.W.—8j, Shriniva Rao (P.W.-9}, Appi A .W.—1{)‘- { 8:. _ Taru g xfP.W.—ll‘ i Elave sateci they came to now om other V‘J’Jagers about e incident. R.B.Singh ‘ .w.-:2‘i As: a5 Arm Mishra (R'Wsi te investigatmg e 1: ‘ r ‘ eat n t beri sheet aild nderwer of ’rhe accusedfagpellant. i 1. a b pmi Km s mma P D t k fr "1 P e h QfEcer have supported the case of t prosecution. FSL r 01“ EXP’{ 21 coafnms the eseoce ofs mozoa ’o , he . Tims, the evioience of the winesses amhxet by ”the prosecui‘ion culariy ‘Lhe proecurix herseii; which speaks Eot to The effect fhat s was rapec by the accuse&fappe11a11t, is sufficie aaci inspires i111: confidence of this Cou anc corrooration ereo has to'be Eooked substemee is liable to b dismisses and it is dismissed as such. ua ' t exi ea; o si a he i nt rt i no b iht . Accrqialy, the peal being W 1 Judgmeni impugneo comnci’mg aim sentencmg the \ i . \ accusedfappeiiant as mentioneci above is aii’ilmed. Appellant is reported to be on bail His bail bonds staaél canceEed. He he sent $0 iaii forthwith. to undergo the u ‘1 remaiumg part ofthe senienoe imposeci on him. ‘ Sdl~ ‘ { Pritinker Diwaker. Judge ‘ s h W-°} of a m a r16 r h , t W h fi pi e he for oig ap h e \