'^ \ —j 1 -/ s ry i.'l'7 .ift; ifljO11' Criminal Appeai No.1131 of 2001 APPELLAN' (In Jail) aged about 26 years, S/o Shri Mankyram, Occupatlon ' AgricuKurist, R/o Village Tikidari, Police Station Ramchandrapur, Distt. • Surguja (Chhattlsgarh). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police > Station Ramchandrapur, Distt. Surguja iChhatti' RESPONDENT: {Crimina! appeal under Section 374 (2) ofthe Code of Crimina! Procedure, t^» Miss Sangeeta ishra, counsel for Mr. Sameer Mishra, Advocate appsars on behaif of Mr. Manoj the appellant- iehar, Pane! Lawyer for the Stats/respondent. Sinaie Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J (5-1-2009) 1 ^ This sppeai is directed against the judgment of convlction and order of sentence dated 8-11-2001 passed bythe Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Sesslons Trla! No.135/2001 whereby learned Sessions Judge after hoiding the appeilant guilty for commission of offence under Sectlon 376 ofthe !.P.C., sentenced him to undergo R-I. for seven years & pay a fine of Rs.7,000/-, in defauit of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for one \/Sa: 'ft^i • 2. The judgment is chailenged on the. ground that without any ciinching and credibie evidence, Court be!o'w has convicted and sentenced the appeilant in the aforesaid manner. 3. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as a!so the record of the trial Court. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 6-2-2001 the prosecutrix A f: (PW-3), who was aged about 22 years, was coilecting wood aiong with her mother & sister at Tikidari forest, Surguja, at about 4 p.m. while she was aione, the accused/appellant -came to her, caught hold of her and la%,,'•%. 1 -:^ ('^"^giaiSi threw her on the !and and forcefully committed sexual intercourse on her. The prosecutrix cried for help and on hearing her cries, her mot'ner came to fhe spot whereupon the accused fled away from the spot. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother. They came back to her house and lodged the FJ.R. on the same day vide Ex.P-1. Intimation was sent to the Magistrate vide Ex. P-2. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-3. The prosecutrix was sent for medicai examination vide Ex. P-4. She was examined by Or. (Smf.) Sarita Singh (PVA/-7) vide Ex.P-4A who prepared t'A'o slides of vagjnatemear of the prosecutrix. Dr. (Smt.) Sarita Singh (PV*>/-7) aiso examined her^petticoat vlde Ex.P-6A. Her petticoat & sari were seized vide Ex.P-5. Undergarment of the accused was seized vlde Ex.P-7. The accused was sent for medical examination vide Ex.P- i. He was examined by D.r. S-K. Garhvi/al (PW-8) vide Ex.P-SA and he was found competent to commlt sexuai intercourse. His undergarment was examined by Dr. S.K. Garhwal (PW-8) vide Ex.P-QA. Siides of vaginai smear ofthe pro.secutrix wereseized vide Ex.P-10. 5. After recordina the statements under Section 161 ofthe Cr.P.C. and after completion of inyestigsti'on, charge sheet was filed before the Judiciai Magistrate, First Ciass, Ramanujganj vi'ho in turn, committed the case to the Coiirt of Sessions, Ambikapur. 6. !n order to prove the guilt of the appeilant, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. Statement of ths accused was rscorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. He 'nas also taken the defence that he has been falsely impiicated on the ground of animosjty & enmity relating to land. Defence has examined Rajkumar (DW-1) & Shivkumar Singh (DW-2). Rajkumar (DW-1) has stated in his evidence that both the partjes were. having land dispute and the complainant party has threatened the accused. Shivkumar Singh (DW- 2) has deposed fhat at the time of incident the accused was working with him from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. in his house. 7. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, Court below has . convicted and sentenced the appeliant as aforementioned. s Learneri counsel for tbe appellant submits that the appeliant has not committed anysexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix z 6 is a married !ady aged about 22 years. The alleged rape has been committed in the forest on the rough land, but no injury has been Tound on the prosecutrix in her medica! examination. Both the parties are in inimica! terms with each other. The complainant party has false'y implicated the accused. 9. On the other hand, the ju3gment is supported on behalf of the State/ respondent and it is submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond a!l reasonable doubts. The accused has taken the beneflt of loneliness of the prosecutrix and committed forceful sexual intercourse on her against her wi!l & consent. 10. in order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, ! have examined the evidence adduced on behalfofthe prosecution. 11. The prosecutrix (PW-3) has stated in her evidence that on the fateful day when she was collecting wood in the forest, the accused came from her backside, caught hoid of her and threw her down on the iand and after removing her clothes, he committed forceful sexuai intercourse on her. She cried for help on which her mother came, whereupon the accused fled away from the spot. Thereafter, Eignl & Kunti also came. She narrated the incident to her mother Ss sister. Thereafter, she came to her house and after narrating the incident to her father, she lodged the report vide Ex.P-1. Her clothes were seized and she was examined bv the 12. Kunti (PW-1) - sistsr of the prosecutrix, aged about 14 years & Radha Devj (PW-4) - mother of the prosecutrix have supported the evidence of the prosecutrix. Narayan Chaudhary (PW-2) - father of the prosecutrix has also supported the version of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was examined by Dr. (Smt.) Sarita Singh (PW-7) who has deposed th.at on 8- 2-2001, she had examineci the prosecut.rix, no external injury was found over her body and some stains were found on her petticoat. The accused was examined by Dr. S.K. Garhwal (PW-8) vide Ex.P-SA who has deposed that on 'nis examination he found that the accused is competent to commit sexual intercourse and he found some stains on the undergarment ofthe accused vide Ex.P-QA. 13. Rajkumar (DW-1) has stated in his evidence that the father of the prosecutrix has previousiy state.d that he can falsely implicate the accused because they were having animosity on the ground of tand dispute, but he has admitted in his cross-examination the accused is his bother in relation and Rita had lodged report against the accused. Shivkumar Singh (DW-2) has deposed that on the date of arrest of the accused the accused was vS'orking in his house from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., but in his cross-examination he has admitted that he has given the work on 14. According to the case ofthe prosecution, the accused has committed the alleged incident on 6-2-2001 at about 4 p.m. and he was arrested vide Ex.P-11 on 7-2-2001 at about ^.30 p.m. Even if the evidence of Shivkumar Singh (DW-2) is admitted to be true, the accused has worked . in his house on 7-2-2001 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. but 'rt is not the date of incident. l5.The prosecutrix (PW-3) has admitted in her cross-examination para 6 that when she was !ay down by the appe!!ant, at that time, she has not received any injury except one injury over his hand and no bangie Vt'as broken. She has not admitted any enmity with the accused in her cross- ixamination. 16 Defence has cross-examined the prosecutrix in detail, but i{ has not been able to elicit anything to discredit her testimony. No specific instance of enmity has been shown by the defence. The prosecutrix is a married iady. She 'nss deposed in detail about the incident. !t is difficuit to hoid that she will falsely implicate any person at the cost of her molesty and honour. Her evidence has been corroborated by the evidence of her mot'ner S slster vvho came to the place of incident sfter hearing her cries. Evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confldence and the same is trustworthy. -i7.Afterappredating the evidence available on record, the Court beiow has convlcted and sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. i do not find any illegality or irregularity in.convicting & sentencing the appellant. 18. Consequent!y, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. ^ —- yoma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge