\v‘\ gé HT$H CGURT O? CHHATTISé‘vARH. ERASPUQ Criminai Ameai Naé a‘f 20% éPPEL%)ANT: n Jei Lochcm 5ing£m fi/e Madwari Ram Kawar, aged Agricuimri's‘r, abou‘? 32 “’1- years, Wk“ Gccupaféon (Cfwj Poke Sm'rion Lakhmgaur, n: v v mugc Disit KGTk§i?§I Sarguja 3. I have heard €eorn2d counso? for The por‘ries and pérused fhe impugned judgmen? as r3530 firm record of fhe frio? Court _ \ Versus RESPONDENT; $612 G‘F ChhaT'i-isgarh, ?hrough Poiice SmTion Lakhunpur, Dis‘i't Sargujq (£55.) {Criminai apgeai undgr 5aC‘Hm 3,74 (2,) af ”the Cade of Criminai Pmced'ure? i973} Mr. Rahui Mish m, counse? far ?£§a appeihn‘t. Mr. Pankaj Shrivasmva: Pane§ Lawyer for fhe Sfaa‘a, MM“,NM“mgmrdw‘wgwakh.4“aQhmzmwwsnwm:,_.,::=u=‘;“,.,,my.‘ A Simk Bench: Hgn‘bie w“. T.P. $harma, E GEQAL E‘UQGMENT (29-9-2008) 1. This Gppem is direcfed ’V genfgmce. datad againsf ‘rha jadgmen? 9f canvich‘on & cgrder‘ of 29~19~2OQ§ gasked by me 15f Addiitimaf Sessions: Juégrg, Ambikepw in Sassbm Tréai Naé33l20134: whereby ieameci Addi‘riona} 5essions Jmige af'mr hwding ‘Fne accgsad/cppe%iam guihy for commission RI. of of§en€e for seven wdar 5ecTion 37'6 {1} af Tim EEC” senfenced him To undergo fine To furthar years (St pay a féne of Rs.I:SGD/-, in defaul‘r of paymenf of undergo RI. for one year. 2. Th2 judgmen‘t is choiienggd on The ground Tho? wi‘rhou‘r any‘evidence reia?in9 ‘ro chance of consznt iaorned Trial Cour? has convicfed and sememced fhe oppeihnf (3‘ Casa of ‘fhe prasecmion: in brief; is fha‘t on 198-2904 a1’ abouf 6 pm. when The prwecufrix (PW-1) was coming from The fieid along wifh her sister-Ewiaw 5uiochann; mime ‘ss deaf g§ dumia; affer answering Tha co?) of mfura, the accuseci/appaHam' guliad her insHe The maze fieid and after Throwing her dswm commh‘ked rape on her- under fhrea'r. Suiochana mn away. The pmsecu‘h'ix cama "ro her Muse and foid The inciden‘r To Paar husband & fwher-in-iaw; fheraaf‘kr‘. she Edged ‘rhe FIR. on 20-8—2004 vMe EXP-1. She was examined by fha dccfor vide Ex.P—4. The docfor no‘Ticed abraséon over her Ie‘H thigh and pain over- ie‘H arm. The accused was aisa examined v'ide EXP—6 and found campe‘rem f0 commif eexuai imereouree, Unajerwear of The presecmrix was seized vide ExP-3. Slides af vagimi emectr were wagered and same were seEzed vide EXP-8. One lef‘l’ hand bangie 0'? The gymsecmrix was 90+ removed and seized vide EXP- 10. Broken pieces of bangies were seizeé from The spoT vide EXP—1i Underwear cf Ti'ie appiicanT was seized vide EXP-12. 5ei2e& arTicies were 5pm map Ex.P-15 wee pregared by Tine EnvesTigaTing 0ffices~ end spot may EXP-16 was prepared by The PaTwarii Af‘l‘er comgiefion of invesTigaTion: cnarge sneeT was fiied before The CourT of Judiciai I‘AagisTraTef FirsT Ciass’ Ambikapur; who in Turn commiTTed The case T9 The CeurT a? Sessions Judge, Sarguja, wiserefrom learned 1“ AddiTionai Sessians Jue‘ge; Ambikapur: received The case on Transfer for Triai. In order To esi'abiisi’i The guii‘r of Theeppeiiant The prosecuTiQn has examined as many as Twen'ry wiTnesses. STaTemenT of The appeiianT was reeorded weer SecTion 313 of The Cr.P.C. in which he denied The circumsTanees appearing againsT him in The prasecuTion evidence; gieaded innecence and false imiiccaTien. Learned counsei for The appeiinnT submiTs ThaT The prosecuTion is required To prove ThaT wiThcuT any wiii 6i cansem‘ of The prosecui'rix The uccusedf appeiian‘i' has commiTTed sexuei inTerceurse wiTh her. Evidence of The senT for chemicai uneiysis‘ 7‘ p w \, 9(0' prosecu‘i’rix and her husband shows Tina? This is a cuss of consent ‘kherefor‘e; The appeiian'r has commif'l'ed no offence. In arder 1'0 prove fhe compiici'ry of The accused in The crime in quesTion, The prosecuTien has adduced acuiar (S: medica‘! evidence. I have examined The evidence avaiiubie on record. The pmsecui’rix {PW-1}; has sTaTed in her evidence ThaT an The fa‘i’efui day cT abouT é pm. when she 55¢ her sisTer—iia-law were coming after answering The caii cf naTure (ease) The accusedx’appeiiam came from his maze fieid and gguiied her, he Took her inside The fieia‘ where he Threw her’down and ThreaTened} he inser‘red his maie organ inTo her privaTe parT and commiTTed sexuai ihTercourse wiTh her. ThereafTeri she came To her house. AT ThaT Time, she was weeping and she Toid The incidenT To her husband4 faTher-in-iaw, moTher-in‘iaw: KoTwar <51 oTher-s. 'FhereafTer, she iodged The reporT EXP-1. She was medicaiiy examined by The docTor. Ramnarayan (PW-3), husband of The prosecuTrix, has supporTed The evidence of his wife. 10. The prosecuTrix (PW-1) has admiTTed in her cross-examinaTion para 8 ThaT on The faTefui day when she was coming from The fieid,‘ her sisTer-in-iaw Suiochana was aiso accompanying her} she was going ahead of her: she is deaf éi dumb. When she Toid The incidenT Ta her husband. faTher-in-iaw (Si moTher-in-iaw, her husband (Si in—iaws were annoyed and her husband assaulTed her. by 2-4 TisTs. $he has denied ThaT The accused/appellanT was previousiy known To her‘ buT she has admiTTed in para 10 of her cross- examinaTion ThaT firsTiy,‘ The appeiianT opened her biouse and pressed her breasTs, Then afTer mounTing on her, he commiTTed sexuai inTercourse wiTh her. AT The Time of commission of inTercourse she was hoiding The waisT of The appeiianT. BuT she has denied ThaT Suiochana has seen The incidenT and Toid To Their reiaTives. In para 12 of her evidence she has admiTTed ThaT she has noT assauiTed The appelianT. In para 13 she has denied her iliiciT reiaTion wiTh The appeiianT one year prior To The incidenT. She has also denied ThaT she was having iiiiciT reiaTion wiTh The appeiianT, because i. she was noT saTisfied wifh her husband. In para 17 of her evidence she has ac§mi‘t1'ed ma? The appelhn? firsTiy opened her Sari, mar-gaffer; he opened her pe‘r’ricoa? erid ‘rhen, he removed her underwear. In para 21, she has admi‘H'ed “rha'r fhe appehan‘r commi‘Hed sexuai infercaurse wifh her for ubouf one haul“. In para 26 she’has admi'rted fha‘r members of her famiiy had compeiied her and assauhed for iodgihg The FIR 11. Ramnamyan (PW—3); husband of fhe prasecufr‘ix; has admif‘red in para 7 of his evidence Thai he wen? near maze fieid and affer taking round, he came back; Thereafter: his wife came To fhe house and narra'red The incident 12. Ex.D-1 is previnus s'rafemenf of The prosecufrix and Ex.D-3 is previous sTafement of Ramnarayan (PW-3). Ex.D-1 reveals ‘i’ha‘r The appeiianf pushed Suiochana,‘ Then she ran away. Ex'D—3 reveals ThaT Suiochana came To Ramnarayan and Tried To inform someThing To him by her gesTurei upon which Ramnarayan accompanied her Towards The maze fieia and Taken round of The said fieid ahd came back. ThereafTer, The prosecuTrix came 13. Evidence of The prosecuTrix, especiaiiy paras 9,, 10,. 17, 21 & 26 shows ThaT she has noT iodged The FIR. voiunTariiyi she was assauiTed by her husband, her husband a in—iaws were annoyed and They compeiled her To lodge The renorT, Thereby she lodged The reporT. While The appellanT was commiTTing sexual inTercourse'. The prosecuTrix was hoiding his waisT and her hands were on The back o‘F The apgellanT. Ali These circumsTances show ThaT The prosecuTrix was The consenTing parTy and The appellanT has commiTTed sexual inTercourse wiTh her aT her insTance. The prosecuTrix is a married lady of 25 years age. The Trial CourT has noT considered The case of consent especialiy on The basis of The evidence of The prosecuTrix and reached To a wrong conclusion. Evidence of The prosecuTrix shows ThaT This is a case bf consenT and The appellanT has commiTTed sexual inTercourse wiTh her will & consenT. Therefore The appellanT has noT commiTTed any offence under SecTion 376 (1') of The I.P.C. and The impugned judgmenT deserves To be seT aside. Vw fhe upped is aiiowed. Convic'rion & senfences imposed upon Ian? under Sacfion 376 (1) of: The I.P.C. are s2? aside and The ¢ppeHanT is acquiffed’ of fhe said charge. The appeiiam is in cusfody. be se‘r a? iiber-Ty for-Thwi‘rh; 14. Consequenfiyf 1'he uppei if no? required in any ofher' case. I ”QXt- T. P. Sharma Judge ff Ki ”if/v JVV “V \