XI-HC-22 aTf^'i'^r Vi-Uch 3TRR[ w»l tif?a ~SSl ^ffqRR, ^•y'lii. hwra^ 31T^?T 1R(^ *il*l(^I<l>*li<B""*<'^ 200 "fN^g""""""""" """ "" 3n^i!?^iTW ^ifer ^?^^^.^,^ CRIMINALAP APPELLANT (In Jail) M(!ii'i9al Prasad @ Badda ©Bhaira Scttnami, S/o 6uru Satnami, aged about ^32|years;r/o village Supa, Police Station Pu^Sore, District Raigarh. Vs RESPONbENT Stjite of M.P., through District M^gistrate, Rajgarh (M.P.) Present; f ^ ^ Mr.RajendraTripathi.Advocat^ Mr. Arun Sao, ©overnmentAdvd|Eate O R A L (20th Per Dhirendra Mishra. J; This criminal appeal is conviction and order of senteni the learned 1 Additional Ses: whereby the appellant has been IPC and sentenced to undergo Case of the prosecution, 12.00 nooh the prosecutrix had village pond, as her husband her ne.ar the pond and enquired had|g •*l<lffl41^ MWdf^'fS^ <1«'K;K ^3ip<n,aii^i EALN0.2360F 2000 for the appellant. for the respondent-State. ITU D6M EJ1T Se|itember, 2007) RtE directed against the judgment of ^e dated 11th January, 2000 passed by ^ions Judge, Raigarh in S.T. No.91/98 jconvicted urider Section 376 (1) of the E. for 7 years. |in brief, is that on 18.5.1998 at about [gone in search of her buffalo towards ;one to the market. The appellant met from her as to where she was going and J ••• •' '^i"/" • •. f'T^S '-^^._ . . \T •^ ,»' I XI-HC-22 aiI^IWI K-Vtb Sf^l : s^ti^^Tfin "3^'^iraRN. (iTfl'y'itf. (»«'ii'yii< 31T^9T TRRR IWCTI'WO'*"^. 2W "fci^t^""""""""'"""" "'" 3TI^f;?^IIW 'SfW z' tKe; fhereafter healso fbllowed he| on the field, thereafter forcifc|ly shput. The. prosecutrix returj husband has not returned; theif bro'flier-iii-law Ndnhuram {PVy- Girdhari} (PW-i) report was Oistrict Raigarhvide Ex.P-9. During inyestigation examination to K.6. Hospital, R{ examined her and gave' her] prosecutrix was taken into po[ placeof incident was taken in't( of the accused taken into poss4 investigation being wearing a| and vagindl slides of the examination to Forensic Scien4 FSL is Ex.P-15 4fter completing ii during trial the prosecution e^i recordedunder Sectibn313 o-1 specific defence, however, he| ••SfS-V—^Sl C[)T^T^ ^I*Mt ^ fs1^ X^I^R ^SlPOTSII^I '. The appetlant caught her and laid her raped her and threatened her not to led hdme, however, by that time her 'efore, she riarrated the incident to her '-6). After return 6f her husband lodged in the Pplice Stcijion Pussour, pp4rels prosecutrix was sent for medical ligarh where Dr. (Smt.) 5. Ekka (PW-11) report of Ex.P-8. Petticoat of the ssession vide Ex.P-3, lungi tying on the o possession vide Ex.P-4 and underwear ssion vjde Ex.P-5. Articles seized during of the prosecutrix and the accused arosecutrix were sent for chemical e Laboratory, Raipur and the report of nvest(gating the eharge sheet was filed and jamined 13 witnesses. In the statement Cr.P.C. the appellant did not take any has examined three witnesses in his tf '». ~^' '•:»:.. XI-HC-22 SII^IWI : ft-li.sh STI^T ^•R •t-ifi^ 's'ssi -^Wvi^. ©Til+f'ie.fsKnwy 3Ti^?r '(ra?i? *ll*ICTI.$h*<iq)' " ^F^ 200 ••^f^r------------ an^iiTOiiwgfei —y^ defence. ;Learned trial cour't ^)'i)^Tili]^ 'TRcTf T?Is^ ^f^l^R iTsi^OTsn^i after hearing the counsel for the respective partjes; convicted any sentenced the appellant, as mentioned inParalofthjsjudgment., |, rt Learned counsel for the ojppetlant submits that the prosecutrix is a grown-up lady, tlme of iricide sexual intercourse with a groi [if is allegeddround 12.00 noon and the place of incident isjan open •field near the village pond where the perspns were present and the^efore, the case of the prosecution is highly imRrobable. t-1e further stjBmits that it is not possible to commit wn-up lady without her consent. He is t^ further submits that there is tbaterial contradiction in theSTatement of prosecutrix, which makes Y\ witness has been examined as| er version unretiable. No independent all the other witnesses are the close relativesof the prosecutrix. Th^ injury sustained by the prosecutrix is probable even if the sexual int^rcourse is commil'ted with the consent of the prosecutrix in the open f On the other hand,learn^d counsel fpr the State has supported the mipugned judgment. Ihaveheard learnedcouil Conviction of the appeltfj &r. (Smt.) S.,Ekka (PW-11). who eld; selfor the parties. ;nt is based on the statement of the prosecutrix as also her husbantl 6irdhari (PW-1), Nanhuram (PW-6) <& has examined the prosecutrix after the ^r' A- I1t ii f •$ r'tfn -•* s-^ *'. • <: 'at- <".t' A B •fi UO!4.l}U!UIDXS XU4.n33SOJ3-J.O—4.U3U134.D+S31(4. isS>|DtUJ usaq 4.ou SDL) apus^sp a^+uoi+sipDJiuc) j.o 301.4 si|+ J.D jaij Xq +nd jDSMjap^n S0\^ UOjplpDJ+U03 'SS3U4.1M S.111+ J.O +D03j4.+ad jsq ajs^m UOI+D+S asijod ai^.l.l puo uiDjisDijg X|SIUDU 360 |IA 31^4. ^o 4t JSIJ4.0 OS|D SD MD|-UI-JSl(J.Ojq JSIJ 04. |t OJ. pSUjn+SJ 3l|? ja4.^D3JSl|J^ •>)33U ja^j psu4. ai|s U3L(/v^ 'jsq Suisssjpun ja+j.Dpsi) jsi) psSSoJp A|qpjoj. pasn33D 341304.4} U014.33J.IP 3L|4. SPJDMO+ +U3M al|£ 'spis 4.01(4. uo si op^j.nq jaL| 4.01(4. jaq aq+ +siu st|S "+s>IJoui 34+ °4- 3li°6 PDi| upjoas w suo6 pDi^ aqs uoou OO'ZI +"°q(' p3+D+S SDll 3^5 pUD £-/^\dSP pSUlt.UDXB •s pauiD+s ajsM xu^noasojd 8i|+ j.o s9p!|s| 33D|d 3ij+ uiojj. punoj. i6un| 4.Di|4. suoj4.u; 344. uo pssoq OS|D s.i yoj+ajAuo^ '8-d"X3| pasrpso Plt}+ J^UE itEhjlB J^ >li»by> |?iS] j< (Lahlh [.(bUJh.llfc •3|qDi|3Jun l|31L|AI 'SUIII+XUD 4.13113 0+ 3|qD |3 SIII+ +ds3X9 'jaAOMOl) '4.USpl3U! SuipjDSsj +rio pa+uiod uasq IUIUIDXS-SSOJO Sl|+ UI •pSZISS SDM ui 4.Jodaj 31)4, pa6po| ja+j.Dsjs^ |D/»i4o>| 36D||iA 6U!pn|3ui suogjsd |Uapl3Uj 31)4. pSj.DJJOU pUD 31UOI) passajd pasnaoo ai|+ 'j.noi|? oj. psdDJ pUD 3AOj5 OSUDU) JD3U |4.Di|4.j.D 'pasn?3D ai|4. <<q ps+uiod 944. J.O UOj+DlUJO^Uj 3t^+ UO aq 'puod \mau ADM uo p3sn33b puoqsni| J3i| SD o|Dj.j.nq J3i| ^o 4.D 4.U3P.13UI j.0 3+Dp 34+ UO •+DIJ+ ^yaqsmt xu4.n3asQ..id si^ ; ' •Bozo+DiujsdsUDiuni^ii+iM IDUiBDA ip ^DOoi+.tsd '+yspjsu! j.b |ui i<3ii|M 'SI-cl'xg ^o 4..jodsj^']s;j jj.O +40d3J J3l| SAD6 pUD +U3pl3Uj -V,— U21»>B!ll»aHibl ,.;.....;...fi£ate}.............. flO; t-tt._..........;...............;.......tt>i>*<Bll^t*llt tfeleh 1^U& AH.lUbj •ai>»^8'hl-'lh'th- &£. Bijft iblltDS B^ltE »lh>) Ifc^lKi' ZZ-3H-K XI-HC-22 1 SII^I^I ri;-<i?b snl^r ^RR? -;— -s^ 'sTPlRra, ^frCTHS. fa'ni'My St^f 'q^SR tlWCTl a»*<icn"""""'"" ^I^. 200 'ft'B^r""""""""""""""" 3D^I;^<iraT ^fef -^- NaHhuram (PW-6), stated thgt on the dateof incik tdkihg his medl, the prosecu'l accused hacfeRapecljher honouri. coming, whereupon, he picked dfter see&ig hirh theaccused andossaulted himonce by^lath| lodge the report. However, improvement in his diary suggestion that they are jmplii Tilakram, as liti'gation is going or| Sirdhari (PW-1), husbanc) that when he returned from whereupon sheinformed that field near the pond. In his cros{ brcontradiction has been evidence of this witness. ' Th& version of the prosf statement of Dr. (Smt.) S. E prosecutrix and found abrasion; prepared by the doctor and <*il«fcl41^ ^Mvii ^ fSVt <f«1'K;K i? apaf anS?T broth^r of husband of;prosecutrix, has also incijdent he was; sleeping in his home after [•rix came qbusing dnd shouting that She also'informed that accused is (ip a lathi and came outof the house, st{irted running, whereupon he caught him on his leg and thereafter he went to a^saulting the accused by lathi is an sta-ttement of ExP-2. He has denied the |:ating the accused at the instance of between Tilakram and Rajaram. of the prosecutrix, has alsostated t^ie market, he enquired from his wife tl(e accused has raped her honour in the crost-examination also no material omission point^d out by the defence to disbelieve the ^cutrix is also corroborated from the ^kka (PW-11) who has examined the over her right <& left elbow. Slide was Ithe same was seized and sent for % ?~ET^ ^i._——-—-' M-HC-22 an^i'cH R-ii.* 311^1 ^w ^t^ Tcg •snqRPi. ^ftwre. f»«iitfi< 3JT^9TTR^ *<I<ICTI 5B*licn'"""""""""""""" ""^T^ 200 •I^G^r--'"" 3II^Ii?^IIW ^lfOT < corroborfated examination to<'the FSb and the prosecutrix is also ^ .tSefenceoftheappellantl ^f; of the proseeution witnesges | .<f<-A'*«^^ impl'icdtibn ciue td*iEie4wna( statement of diefence witnessel prosecution witnesses the appe) preyious animosity between appellant,; whicti would justify | animosity the dppelldnt has be| caseof rape inyolving the honou] In the result, the appeal| dismissed and it is, accordingly;| relport tHe ckl^d^^ •q!t*K?ff'^ Ts^ <^i<^i< i; <Rpg*i aii^r of FSL is Ex.P-15. The version of by the prqmptly lodged FIR. as appears from thecross-examination |is that of complete denial and false 'ivalry. However, either from the or from the cross-examination of the lant hasnot been able to establish any family of the prosecutrix and the the defence that on account of above ;n falsely implicated and that too in a of the prosecutrix. has no merit, the same is liable to be Idismissed, Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge € I