! •< HI<31-IG©yi^OP®l-IMiekTETIS©%RHffl I-Blt.»SPURs Coram: Hon't>!eSShri?T.P;ShaiBna^and Hon'bleShriSRajeShwraRl-al Jhanwar, JJ. Criminal ApDeal N0.775 of2007 Aooellant - Shankar^hukla, S/o,Shri AshpkShukla, ^iii'iail), . : : : aged about;%)9 :years, R/o-Gurunanak' ^^Wai-d; Bhatapara'(T6wn),l::>.S;fihafapara ;<Town), DisttKRaipurCe.G.) •''•Versus'''•'•:• :-''-:,/' \ . 1' ' Resoohdent : State X ^GhMattisgarh, through^^ . . ,.,^, ;,-.r ^- ^Bhatapara^Town), Dist.Baipur(C.G.) , :^ :^'^ ^.1^ ::'.?Fi.lJ'',^.-.^l( '":;'^'^ APPEALUNDER?SEC^I(3^374<2tiaRtMECODEOFSRIMINAt. :'^^''.:''stR© ©UREi.'':'~:'.!::',- u Preserit..: .': • :. .:-;: ;~ ;.': •;/;;.; •^;.'. :,':.;: .z ShriVinod KunT^rSharma.GQynselfpFthe^apFtellant. ShriSandeepYadav,Dy.Gjai;TortMeStafeJ ORAt..JUDGNtENT^ (PassetKon iao-1.32011) ThefollowingoralJudgmehfoftlleCourtwasdeiiveredbyT.P.snarma.J. 1:^1 iklii I'il! l1|! Chaltenge in tMis appeal is to thejudgmentofcpnvictionandorcler of sentence dated 27.7.2G07 passed by^ ftle^pecial',i!uclge;underiSC/ST Atrocities Art, F^ipyr whei^by ;and ;wh®r^tmdeR^^ conyicrtedthe^pellantunder§ections^6gi37?and^323ofthe^l^ 3 (1) (xii) and 3 (2) (v) of the SGMeduled Saste and Seheduled ^T^ (Prevention pfAtrocities^,'"AGt^r^h6ft^|ie;Acrt'^ R:l.^r5yearswithfineofRs;50D/-andcindefaulttbfirtj&runderg6R.l.f6r- two months uttder Sei^ion 366 E>fthe1?P.C.^tQ'Un8ergDRJ.^r^^7 with fine Qf l%.1,(roo/-:j3nd mde^ult'tc) fttilheruhdei^o^ undersection 376 bfthe^P.O.ito payfmeof Rs.50^ further undergQ RJ. fbr bne montH under Secfion 323 bfWe l^ undeigo RJ. fer6 yearswjth^n^ Qfl^.500/-1n d^ultiofurtheryndergQ R.f. fbr one month under Section 3 (1) (xji);of the AGt^ancl tQ-i.iijideEgo Ijfe imprisonmentwitKfihepfRS.1,QOO/-andiinyefaultt^yndergeBfurtherR^ fdr 6 months of the I.P.C. It was sfyftBer orderec) tltat alt tlie senterjces shall run^eincurFently.. "•...' .' ' ' ' . i ^ 'HO'^^V' '••" ;;l.i;;n1' -^—^^S^Sg^sissaffi-.-; ^ll :'-'i' '^i.:^ :.r ilKM B:E.I - K-; .>:,'•. ^;? ilsil .1111 iillii 'l.lll -t n ;WWf^sgS^SS^S^^S^! '^.^!^'^^S:SS::5S^^^^^S SSS38sSS!W ^Sg'SS&sStSSSSiS' :^:.'';.';':/: .••:'" 2.^ Co|ivicrtion; is impiugned on.the groynd^ ;eyiaenc®^fHe Gburt below cdnvicted andysehten^ afOrementioned. ' 3. AspertheeaseQfprosecution,on 19.1.200&atabout 7.30p.m. the proSeGutnx waS present near Narayan Hotel sitUate at Bhatapara, the appellant came there on His cycle and he fook hertowards out of city 6n the pretext that he would marry her^ After teking h^ GOmmitted sexual intercourse with Her without her will and consent. Thereafter,herefusecltQperformmarriagewithHer.VVhensherequeStec| to marry her, ttien he assaulted the proseGytrix and fled frem the spot. Then the prosecutrix went to'poHce s^tion Bhatapara and lodged W^ EJ.R. vide Ex.P.1. Undergari^rits bEthe prosecutnx were se EXP.2. Thecastecertifleat&offfieproSecutrixisEx.P.SwhiehwaSseized vide Ex.P.3. Shewasserif'forrnedicalexarninationtoCommunjtyHealth Center, BhataparawhereshewasexaminedbyDr.JagritiAgrawalP.W.5 and as per her exarhination, secondary sexual character 6f th^ prosecutrix were foumj well dsyeloped. NQ internalana extemal injurieS were^^^^ Hymenwas6ldandhealeatprnati8''2''4'''OclQCk.Vaginaadmiae8^Q finger easily and tenderriess was found in the uterus. Two yaginal slides were taken. The report of medical exarriinatipri pf the proseGutrix; js Ex.P.5. Accused appellantwas also examjnsd vide^^ Awasthi P.W.7 who,after examination of the appellant, foynd, that the appellant is able to peiferm ^exual jntei^urse.^^^^^^ iappeHant were^also seized vide'Ex.R.^^^^ :l:i:!;:::[-':: •'i'.J-r^/H:' ;Ex.P.14.Accusedwastakenii^custody^on 21.01^^^ ^ 4. Statements of witnesses;were reeonied under Section 161 6f the Gode ofCriminal Procedure, 1873^(fQF,shQrt''theCode'').Af(er<»^ of jffvestic^tion, charge ^eet was fil^ before the Co^ BhataRara, who in turn committed the case tp the G Raipur. The Special Juclge undgrtfieAtrQGitiesAfrt^ i:itrarisfer^rits^nal.^"P^?'"n^wa?.3:'^ %^w '!i" [V:''^ l;;s;: :-::'1: 5. tri order tp provethe gyilt (rflhe aceused; the prosecution^exam ^as mShyas 8witnesses< ACGtisecl^was;als©[examiried^nd^Se^ pf the Gode where he denied^the Gireumstanee^appearing^^ iiaricilningGenGeahdlalsejmpllii^on^incriiTieSih^uesti 'l^ :b ^l i- 1 'il £:"'lri Iffl ilii? :5iil:l;i 3 6. After affcsrding eppOFtunity gf hearing fe trte parties, the learned SpeCialJudg&oonvictedandsentencedthe^appellantasaforementioned. 7. Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellantand Shri Sandeep Yaday, Dy. G.A. fpr the State are heard. Jydgment impugned andrecordofthetrialperused. 8. Learned counsel for tl% appellaht vehemfentty argyed that in the present case the appellant has toeen falsely implieated in crirne in question. He did hot kidnap the prosecutrix nor did commitany offence of rape upon the prosecutrix. The evidence of prosecutrix P.W.1 is ncit Gorroborated by the medica^eyiclence, therefore, hereviclehce does^nbt inspire confidence anclJrust^OFthy and the same is not safeto r^ly. The learned Special Judge wi{(j6ut appreciating the evidence properly convieted and sentence^Ihff appiellant, which is riot susjainable' Under law. He plaeed reliance jn the matter of Racfhu v. Ste^e of Madhya Pradtesh, 2007 STPL (LE)3S958SG, inwhieh the Supreme Court held that in ease of discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecutrix and the fact thattheevidence ofthe prosecytrixis notcprroborated bythe medical evidence, the aecused is entitled for acqyittal. 9. Qn the other hand, learried coynsel for the State opposeel the arguments adyanced by the learned cpunsel for the appellant and argued that the evidence pf P.W. 1 i.e. the prosecutrix is syfficient for the cQnyictiQnoftheappellant.AspersijggestiQninherexaminationthatthe ^prosecutrix was~cQnsenting';party; upoa^ieh, ahed^ cdnsenting party. The evidenee of^ttie pwsecution alonei^sufficienffor convictin^the'appellant.'"' "\'"''" :; ^' lr 40. In order to appreciate the apgyments advanced on tbehalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence addyced on behalf of the prosecution. As per fhe eyidence pf the prosecutrix P.W.1, she was mQvjng nearsome ganyah tre&ferKaying someitern.the appellahtcame there oh'his cycleand direGted herto sitbn his cycle. The appellant^lso promised herto marry and took her. Thereafter, he cQmmitted rape with her^thricte withoyt her own free will and consent; The appellant detained her till 4'p.m. Thereafter he'feld to leave her upto her^pus&and^ ?i€gaestedtheappel|antaboutth&rnarriage,?thenheassaulted;andteftthe plaeN.1 ^She" ha&'furttieF deposed •that she has lodged F.liR. vide>Ex.R. 1 u h ....w-^u^.K-sae^a.KiWK;- L^-J?;^a-r^?ara-TC^K)^ B ®^^^^^B^r^@^''M^%?l^;%;:^^^E is5»m '<-; i:sa !iil M andshewas examined ^ Br. JagFitiAgrawal P.W.T^and caste^c^ and other articles belbnging to her were also seized from her. The defence has cross-examjned this witness at length. In pairagraph 6 of her cross-examinatiph, she has admitted that if the appellant would have performed marriage with herthen she would not have lodged the report against him. She has vefy specifically deposed that even after resistance, ttie appellant has corrimitted intercoyrse with her. She has denied the suggestion that the appellant has brought her oh the pretext of giving money. She herself has deposed that she is not a prostitute. She has fyrther denied the suggestiori tllat she did hot apply for monetary aid before the State Gpvernment nor was even single penny granted bythe I- ;;' ••• '"^'!. State. She has alsoctenied..thesuggestionthatshehas voluntary gone with the appellant.i 11. As per evidence of P.W.5 Dr. Jagriti Agrawal, hymeri was 'old and torn conditjon and yaginal orifice'admits one finger. She h^sndticed;the factum of teridemess i.e. pain iri the vagina which issuggestive of the fact that the appellant had fprcibly ciommitted intercourse in the absence of eyidence offirst intercoursewith prQsecutrixand nosuch positjveconsent would be availablefromthe Rrosecytrb<. • ; ^-t •-.r.y^Ott^l ). t.tK.ti 12. The detaited.evidence and answere given by th& prosecutrix pn the basis of suggestion given by the defence elearly revealed that the appellant has committed fbrcible sexual intercourse with the Rrosecutrix but he hasfried to showthat he has cpmmitted sych offence ohlywith the consent Qf the prosecutrix and^that too sifter paying money 'to hep, whteh theprosecutrixhasspecificallydenied. ! ' ' '<- ' . '. . . . • •'. " . . . ••.''•••' 13. In the absence ofanyevidenceoffree own willand eonsent, the intercoursecon'imitted bytlleappellantwaswithoutwilland consentofthe pFoseeytrixor on the pretext-ofmarriage.ShehasfyrtherdepoSedthat when requested the appellant to perform marriage with her, the appellant has caused Simplehurttotheprosecutrix. ' ' 1 14. As per evidence, on the pretext of marriage wjth her, the prosecutrix has vpluntarily gone with theiappellant buttheiappellanthas fail6d tp perform marrjage with her shows that the^ appell^nt has kiclnapped the pFosecutFix on'ffi&false pretext of marriage and without her ffee own will and cbnsent has illegallycommjtted the intercoursewith her. •w. .B:,t;;j;.i;..-.ia*;^yatiai;- -ir'-*';':. •-•••^^ "tt 1 JP ^' '"^y1 :fSf'r" '^ \(!1" ^ • - The evidehce of prbsecutrix P.W.1 and-the documents Ex.P.8, it is clear that the prbseeutrix jS a memfcier of schedyled Gaste but in the present case, the appellant has not connmitted any offence in the name pf her caste but has committed theoffenceonth&groundthatthe^prosecutrixis awoman. ' 15. After appreciating the evidence available Qn recordt ffie learned Spebial Judge has CQnvicted and the sentenced the appellant under Section 366, 376 and 323ofthel.P;C. and 3 (1) (xii) and 3 (2) (v) ofthe Act. Vyithout any evidence that the appellant has committed the offence on the ground crf paste of the prosecutrix, the conviction and sentence underSecrtion 3 (1) (xii) artfS (2HvyoftHeAct is not systainable urider law but the evidenee' pn ^cprd suggested that the appellant tias eommittedintercourse'ifSfifhheftongivingfalsepretextis Sustainable under seetion 366, 376 ahd 323' ofthe 1;P.G; As held in the case of Radhu v. State ofNIadhya Pradesh that there issOlitary non-corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix, therefore, it is not reliable, but in the present case, the evidence of the prosecutrjx does not showahy discrepahcy nor any non-corroboratiQn. Inthis view of the matler; the facts in the cited casearefullydistinguishableonthegi-oundsandfacts. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowea. CcJnviction andsehtenceoftheappellantunder^ection3(1)(xiJ)and3(2)C<if)o'l?the Act are hereby set aside and the appellarit is acquitted of the charge under Section'3 (1) (xii)'and 3 (2) (y) of;tl^AGtwhereasGQnviGti sentehre6ftH6app6']lar^undgrWcrtiog366,'37&and323(^ herebymaintained. [~ .^ : ..Sd/-': :, T.P.Sharma Judge .-u-'^-- Sd/- R.L. Jhariwar Judge i^ ) ^l -,( ...^..- f Kl ^H.,