ssq-.^pnoiq', (STH^'KS, R|(<i|^^< ^ ^Wv{\ **1|cb •R^ 200 an^yr 'vw (ipf^g^r) ail^T.^iT Vw^i WnSIR^I *I41'b l^IRIT^lfeT 311^1 mOH COURT OF CHHA'tTISOARH AT BILA8PUR CRIMINAL APPEAl, N0. 417 OF 2004 Appellant Accused (In Jail) Respondent Prosecution Venius Kamlesh Bhartiya, Labour, PoUce Stt (C.G.) Kumar, S/o. Meghu - Ram. aged 19 years, Occupation - ^esideat of Villagee - Heniabandh, ijtion - Nawagarh, District - Durg State of |CUhattisgarh, Through Incharge Officer, P{)Uce Station - Nawagarh, District - Diirg (C|G.) Present Ur. Prafull Bharat, counse Mr. Aron Sao, GA for the Uhirendra Mishra, J This crunuial appeal is <| conviction aud order of sentenc) S.T.No. 71/2004 whereby leanf (FTC), Benietara, Durg has 376(1) read with Section 511 undergo RI for five years, pay a payment of fine to undergo en)*f[(n^lTi 'qTq^ff Tf t^rt ^ptf^K ^i'aTfiPTSI^T for the appetlant. tate/respondent. ORALJVDGMENT (29tk Nove|mber 2007) firected agamst fhe judgment of dated 16th AprU 2004 passed iu led II Additional Sessions Judge con^icted fhc appellant under Section |if fhe IPC and senteuced Mm to |fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of RI for SBE inonfhs. additiional ^infcfib-r )?lil<t ^suiiors*i, —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. 3^q'.^[TqT?Rr, enfl'H'IS, Rl<'iW^< ^Wv{\ **<|cb •^ 200 sn^?r iiira? (1jcif^5w) an^r.'m R-fi'ti WI3IICT *11* TOIRR ^lfer 3D^[ "2- Outtoost 2. Case of the prosecutioi^. prosecutrtx had gone to her Sstif. aceused took her to the field of rape with her after taking out hf hiniself. She narratcd fhe inci4 froia the field and fhereafter. fh^ Ishwari Prasad (PW-3) lodged about 21.30 hours in Police NaUshi criuic iffas registered TSswagaxh vide document of Ei{ prosecutrfai was sait for medic|al Benietara where Dr. Rajshrec^ prosecutruc and gave her reporj; the prosccutrix i.e. underwear sent for exaiaination and hcr also sent for medical examinatio reportis Ex.P/12. 3. After completine irivestis Court of Judicial Magistrate was recdved on transfer for tr| Judge, Bemetara. <ri<ilci<ill 'wreif if fet^ <P!|^K '^aifinsii^r in brief. is that vrhen fhe for guardiug her gram. crop, fhe fhooldas and attenipted to coiamit ^r undcrwear and after undressing (ent to her niofher after returning prosecutruc along with her father ^ report on 31,12.2003 itsdf at Dadi. On fhe basis of Dehati on 1.1.2004 in PoUce Station LP/ 14. Duriag investigation the exaiuination to Govt, Hospital, Devdhar (FW-61 examined fhe of Ex.P/ 10. Wearing apparel of during investigation was also is Ex.P/ 11. Tfae accused was aud his inedical examination shized retoort ation idtion charee sheet was ffled in fhe Ht'st Class. Bemetara and fhc sam.e lal bv lcarned Additioaal Sessions Durine trial fhe urosecullion exaniiued 10 witnesses in aU. Thereafter, stateruaat of fhe a^cused was recorded in which he <Nt^ ^s;ulf<^, —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. 3sq'^(T!n^T, STfly'Ko, (s|<?>lt)y *<i*i^i **ii* •-—-—•••—-•—••••••• ^ 200 an^?r ira^ (ipf^ijtr) 31)^1.TT R;-<jcb crar 4tit<?i sF^t+ denied the evidence appearing aad pleaded iruiocence and fals trial Court after hearing convicted and sentenced fh.e ac paragraph 1 offhisjudgnient. adainst tiini in the prosecution case |e uupUcation. HoT^ever, learned coufasel for the resnective parties ;used/appdlant as mentioned in 5. Learned counsel for fhe of statemeut of the prosecutrfai: is evident fhat at fhe tiine iadeperideiri. witnesses nameh| daughter of hcr uncle Keshri of fhe above persons has been dlarv statements have not be< available on record that fafhal conuuunitv and about one vear of fhe prosccutrtx Keshn Prasaf fhe Caste Panchavat and bcc4 appdlant has been falsely roped|ui 6. Refen-mg to the stateme4t (FW-5) it is argued ffaat the aUeged attem.pt ofrapeto inofher of the prosecutrix has 4 was lodaed onlv on the next dal in fact lodged on 31.12.2003 in chi'iiI<n'4lTi 'HR^ff "£f•^st "<fo(-^^ ^T siRpT aii^i a^jpeUant submits fhat froni perusal p|articularly paragraphs 14 & 15, it of aUeged uicident number of Archana, Sushmita, Urvashi- Prfa.sad were prescnt, however, none txamined during trial. Even theu- tn. recorded. There is evidence of the appeUant is head of fhe lorior to the date of incident uncle |1 was ousted froni the society by kuse of fhe above animosity the the aforesaid crmie, fhese ^ritnesses. of Prandas (PW-4) and Meelbai p^-osecutrix did not tdl about fhe It is further araued fhat [launed fhat report of fhe incident i.e. 1.1.2004 whcreas report was PoUce Outpost Dadi. ^ tfae <1*T —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. 3'eq' '^ww^, ®Tfl«'i<», (q<?>iyy HW^\ **^|cb •R^ 200 sn^r IRSR (ipf^g^T) aii^i.qiT R;-)i* WIT3IK?T still'* 7. On fhe other hand. learnetl the iinpugned judgmeat argued| dulv corroborated from fhe Medbai fPW-5) as also from the| inofher and PW- 3 Ish1nrari Pras; corroborated froni fhe statemerl who has examined the prosecutj-bc vagina as also in fhe iriternal counsel for fhe State supporting that •viersion of fhe prosecuteix is stbtements of Prandas (PW-4) and Istatement of PW-2 Panchbai - her \d - her fafher. Her version is also ^t of Dr. Rajshree Devdhar (PW-6) and noticed reddishness on ha- ofhervaguia. 8. I have heard learned have perused the m.aterial a' im.puenedjudgment offh.e trial pa^t coutisd hdine. 9. The prosecutrix is an ag^ examination fhe trial Court ha^ aiismrers fhe questions wlth u^i com.petait to depose. She has 4< she had gone on guard duty a\ her on ftie pretext of eouu;to ground, took out her underweajr organ ia her vagma. She furth^r fhreateued her not to dlsclose returned feom fhere and met narrated fhe incideut to them.l her mofher Panchbai aad °bi*i[<Ti-4lTi +ii+i<nl*^f [~^^i\ (F^w^ ^? sfRiq 3D^T for the respectwe parties and rajlable on record iiicluding fhe ^ourt. ^ d. L-'l^- ^t year old ysSt.' After preliminary recorded his satisfaction fhat she u^iderstanduig and as such, she is ^eposed fhat on the date of incident her crop vrhere fhe accused took ;, thereafter, made her lie on fhe and attempted to insert his male stated that fhe accuscd had also iact to anvone. Thereafter, she iMeelbai and Prandas on way and She also narrated fhe iucident to fh<b-eaftCT, she weut along with her tttus ^W y^uii(Ti^, —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. 'yssi ^i<ii<s<), giTdy'Ks, iqoitiy ^W<?{\ sb<4|cb ••-—-—-—--••—••—•-••• ^ 200 an^?r irag; Cpf^a^ti) 3TI^I.^l1?:rty wiiaiK^i 'iew fafher to lodge the report ia polic| adinitted fhat ofher fhree girls where she had gone on guard the evemng. It is not the case oj was witaessed bv fhe above narrated the incident to fhose paragraph 14 & 15 of her available on record fhat ftiey in incidcnt. Therefore, non-exami) impeach the credibility of fhe testmionv is corroborated discrepancy in the statenient report was lodged in fhc also of no consequence becaus^ lodaed on 31.12.2003 itsdf by stated ftiat he accompamed th^ iminediatclv after fhe incidcnt 10. So far as fhe reason for uncle of the prosecutrix Keslt against fafher of fhe appellant,| he was penalized by the Caste ^ has been roped ui a false case, reason that a father shatl put| aged about 8 years, at stake chi<i[CT<i1'ri •q(*i<nf T? f^<<^ •(.rsl't^K ^; 3TRiH Sli^T station. In paragraph 14 she has |iffere also present in fhe vicinity and aU of fhem had returned in fhe prosecution fhat fhe uicideat persoas or fhe prosecutrtx ^ersons, who havc been nauied in and fhere is no evidence (act had an occasion to witness fhe of fhese witnesses wffl not ^rosecutrix particularly when. her fhe medlcal evidence. The |>f mofher of the prosccutrix fhat 7(ng day at PoUce Outpost Dadi is fh.e First Inforination Report •was fafher of fhe prosecutrix who has prosecutrix to fhe police outpost lodged fhe report. duftv nfemed stateaient examibation frotn foUowbi! ailid fdlsc implication of the accused fhat ri Prasad was having anunosity who is head of the coiuiuuiutv as 'anchayat, fherefore, tiie appdlant is concerned, it does not appealto fhe honour of bis own daughter, ^.o wreak veaigeance on accqunt of A ^i^r -FS/59—8/2007 —30.000. 311^1 ^RlfiFIW TraTsn^iwitiw ^ ^ 3^? '<ii<<io<<, ®Tfl'y'is,Riwi'yy tlTOCTT *Nl<h "^ 200 an^yr TRqi ('pt^^?) I^ITW ^if?g aii^i soine incident aBegedly incident and fhat too. witU <l*l<lldjllt*1 +fi*«'if^l^zt ^.f«i+$i< ^aifinaii^ ]>ccurred one year prior to the above |fheuncle ofthe prosecutrix. 11. On fhe basis of aloresaid aualysis. this Court is of thc considered opirtfon ffaat) viersion of' the proseeutrix inspire coiifidenee. Her testuri statements of other wit4esses mcluding her paraits and tsro indepcudent wltncsscs aijid it is ftuthcr corroborated froin the medical evideace as also fflegality or mfirmity ia ft^ 12. In the result; fhe a^(p to be disniisscd and is acctr ony is duly corroborated from the the prompfly lodged FIR. There is no e impugned judgment of the trial Court convicting ftie appeBant x^nder Section 376( 1) rfvr Section 511 of the IPC aad sentenciag hiTfi accordin^y. .{(peal being devoid of substance is Uable "dingly, disuussed. ^^^a, ^^