WWI IIHIHM ll MW! 0000058097 IN THE HIGH CGURT OF MADE-WA PRADES‘I AT JABiaLPUR. ofg V1dhan rumar v1 shwas ‘on cf Ad1tya aha-Id vishwas, aged about 16 Vears R/o wHaJe ehutradm, U. . ‘Kusnn, 15t; SarQUJ '3 (MP) ;.versus- CRIMINALL APPEAL NO. The State of Madhya Pradesh t¥ APPLAL UNDEP SECT ICN 37L}(2) OF 'l FE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CUNF. ‘ g‘ ‘ 3h yk HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 1995. APPELLANT Vidhan Kumar Vishwas. VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri H.B. Agrawal Iearned Sr. counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal for appellant Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2! OF THE CODE OF ' CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (04.02.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21 .12.1994 passedby Sessions Judge, Ambikapur (Sarguja), in Sessions Trial N0. 278/1993 convicting the accused/appeiiant for-the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and pay fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.4.1993 FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1) aged about 16 years alleging that on 11.4.1993 when at about 9 a.m. she was sleeping in her house, the accused/appellant had come tolmedically treat her, asked the children present there to get out of the house; cLosed the door from insiderstarted pressing her breast and after undoing the zip of his full-pant committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant,guilty, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled a -2_ against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in thé case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted arid senenced the accused / appellant for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that present is either a case of consent or false implication and that the report lodged by the prosecutrix is inordinately delayed without being satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. He submits that the medical report also does not support the version of the prosecutrix. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that as an ailing young girl has been r’avished by the accused/appellant on the pretext of providing medical treatment, no interference with thefindings of the trial Court is called for. 8. From the evidence of the prosecutrix it is clear that she was ill for quite some time and was so weak that it was difficult for her even to walk. According to her, earlier also the accused/appellant used to provide medical treatment to her but on the fateful day when her parents were not at home, he came there in order to inject her and asked her sister and niece to get out of the room, removed her as well as his cloths and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that on account of sexual intercourse, her private part had started bleeding and she was feeling pain. Incident was witnessed by her sister through the peepholes of the door. According. to the prosecutrix when her mother came back, she narrated the incident to her and thereafter the report was lodged. The prosecutrix has stated that delay in lodging the FIR occasioned due to her being weak and as soon as she notice some improvement in her condition, the report was lodged. Statement of t 3.‘ .t the prosecutrix is duly supported by ‘her younger sister namely Sampati Toppo (PW-2) who has categorically stated she was asked by the accused/appellant to get out of the room and then he had closed the door from inside. According to this witness, through the peepholes of the door she had seen the accused committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. This witness has stated that after the arrival of heriparents, the entire incident was disclosed to them. the case of the prosecution. According to this witness, after the prosecutrix being subjected to sexual intercourse, she was not in a position to walk and was complaining pain on her private part. the case of the prosecution. Dr. J. Kujur (PW—4) is the doctor who had medically examined the prosecutrix. According to this witness v there was swelling and redness on the private part of the prosecutrix Lohra (PW-3) has also supported Father of the prosecutrlx namely Saien (PW-6) has also supported Mother of the prosecutrix namely and on a slight touch thereof bleeding would start. 9. ‘ Having undertaken this much factual discussion, this Court arrives at the conclusion that taking advantage of the helplessness of the prosecutrix the accused/appellant exploited her sexually on the pretext of providing treatment to her. Not only this, the entire incidentwas seen by the younger sister and niece of the prosecutrix through the peepholes of the door which has been fully supported by the FIR, the prosecutrix has categorically stated that on account of regards two days’ delay in lodging the medical evidence as well. As her being physically weak the report could not be lodged promptly and as soon as her condition improved, she‘ went to the police station and lodged the report. Thus, the findings recorded by the Court below convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned above being well founded do not call for any interference in this appeal. rs 10. ln the result, the appeal being. without substance is liable to be h ,x/s/JJ’K ii Sdl’ iwakef dismissed. lt is dismissed as such. if: l Prittnker D Judge n