SjnflIeBenctt' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.GI \,:'. • CRIMINALAPPEAL N^^ 2006 APPELLANT (Ii^-Jail) 1) RESPONDENT Raj @ Tanvir S/o Sharif Musalnnan Aged about20 years, ' 2) ».Raju@RakeshS/oRambadanDwivedi Aged about20 years, Both are R/o. Mohala, PS-Mohala,Distt Ra]i-^ndgaon(C.G.) VEfiSUS StateofChhattisgarhThroughPolice StafionMohala, Distt- Rajnandgaon (C-G.) / : CriminalADDealunder/sertion374RY6ftheCodeofCnmina! Procedure Kl » Kl • •I sai M! BB K§! EsSiiiS ^^r;?^l B SSi KBE •! BBSIIII• Ktil B... 4 ^' mcaa coimrwcwBATrnBoiaui, BiLAwrot \. CrtariaatABpedllo. S'W/SiOOC Raj @Taaveer aaid anofher - Vs. State ofChhatt^iA t^ JUDCUNBnT Rat&r 08.01.2007 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge / / mcai OOORT OF caniAmsGARH, BttAsnni \.! G-IintnalABBeaI no. 849/9006 Raj @ Tanveer and another Vs. State ofChhattisgarh #- Shri S.C.Venna, couiMelfiM-thc appeUants. Stui M.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer, for the State. -< JUDCaMBIIT (08.01.2007) Sudl Ktuaar Sialia.J. (1) Tliis appeal is djiccted against the judg^ent of conmct^ and order of aeateiMC dated 22.6.2006 paaacd ly fhc Spedsfl Judge (S.C. and S/T. P^BveBtiMi ofAtaxaties] Acl), Rqimadga»ain Spccial Case No. 12^2005 wUeBeby Itae appeUants Ilflwe been convicted lUMleSr seetk»Bs376(2)(^aad34lofIPCaadsentenGedtoimdei^RJ.^^^^^ yeara aad fin^ of Rs.500/-, ia dcfautt of paymea.t of finc, to uadeigo fiirtfaer S.I. for two monthsand 8.1. for 1 BMMifli icspecti»efy. p2) The case of fhe proaecutwn te that thc pBosecatebc asaaBfy RatUMka Gond (P.W.l) and her cousin Isliwari, ayed aboutS years, botfa bdong to Scheduted Tribe. On 22.2.2006, thcy hail goiie to village Aktakanliar fiom fheir vflfagyon a Bfcyclc. Whfin they wcre ^' - __ .; ... " 1' „ . retuming back in tfac CTcning at aibout 4.30 p.m., fhese appdteiite and one ViUd @ Vikas, a juveiiite oflfender, nact thcm on ttie way and fliey stopped thcmaear BybaaaarNala. Tbe prosecirtrixiiras tafeeri by (heappeDantiio.l to a nrarby plaee aEtd herclofhes (Jeans andl^q^ wcre renuwed atid fbereafter, thie appdtent iu?.l cmuaittBdfsexual Wi mtercourae against her. The aBcgatioris are fliat the other tw®co- accused were keeping w&tch on -&c pCTSons pasamg fliiou^ thc Road and fhey had feKilitated appeBant no. 1 to commit rE^pet Upoa flie prosecutrix. The fiirBier aB^atkxns are tbat theBeafta'those taro accused perswis dso sterted moving tcn^uds fte proseeutrix andtm seeing fhem., fhe prosecutrix, thmting that tliey woilld also comaut scxual intercourse against ht^, ran scway fiom (he place crf'oociuronce .f-'t ! towatds fhe road on underwear aml a piecc of ctofh (Ghunen^ onty^ wNch she eouU have put on when she left ibefSeKX. It is aUeged fliat on fhe road.she metwith troo peraons naia^r Manak Qond (P.W.K) and Jyot Kunwar Bai (P.W.5), whowere previousty fenowa; to her. Sbs naiaated tfie stoiy to fhean. Aftu' hearing the stoiy, (hey went to tiie forest area aad flicy brou^it Ishwariwifli liam. lliey also saw three aCCUSCd yrsrmst ninning numy fix>a» fhat place. It M aBcged that fhereafter, fhe piosecutrix atoo aart-ated fhe stoiy to oae TeacheT of viBage Mohala iiamefy Tula Ram (P.W12) aad and DiUp Smgne (P.W.13), who had abo Teached to fhe ptece of occurrence and^- thereafteT shc'lod^d the icport in poUce statimi vide Bx.P-1. On fte said report, the invest^dion coBiinenocd aiid fte site ptan of fhe place of occiUTence was prepared by the S.H.O. vide Ex.P-3 and the proseeutrix was medicalfy exasamed by fhe Doetor on 23.2.2005 vide Ex.P-17. Duru^; tfae eourse ofiavestigation, appeBant Raju@ Rajesh was put to test identifeation parade on 26.2.2005, omidixited by ttie ^ : ' Siib-Diwsn»nal Ihfaigisteate Mohala .iSamely H.K. Ranrar (P.W.ll), in whfcfa he was duty identificd by thc pros»cutrixand a inenuKE'antlmn to ttus efifect,vidc Ex.P.6^wEffl preparod. A meinomtKtnmi of oo- acGUsed^Juvcmlc Ofifender ViklB@'Vikas,ii/s 27 rf'the J^wdencieimais lecordedon 23.2.2005 videE&P-12,QaWfaicll,thcBiE!y^ .-si'.i^r!&,srssss!; N111 :il:l prosecuttKwasrectweredon 23.2.2005 vide &(.P-13.flx»aflie place indicated by Iiim Which was a ceaaent pipe under fte cubfext (Pu^ <rf Babamar Nala. A caste certi&afe(Bx.P-15) offhe|U08ecutrixwa8 also seized and after con^>tetioa ofmvcstqjBtien, a chai!ge shect ii/as. 376(2)(ri, 341 IPG aad seetibn 3(l)(xi^ of the Seheduted Castes and Ststeduted Tribes (Preveatton of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ^Iicreinaflw referred to i thc Special A^ was ffled agamat fhe qBpcllauts befiMB fhe Jiidicial Magistrate, -First Class, AinbagaA Chowki, IMstt Rqnant^aon. Sinee the co-accused Vildd ® V3sas -w^ a. ja'veasBe, a separate chaige sheet was fBed against him. TheiJ.M.F.C. coauiitted- titus case to the Special Court on 6.4..2005. (3) TheIeanMid SpeciaIJudgp ftamedchaiges u/s 376(^1^ and 341 IPC and sectioa 3(l)(xi^ and 3(2)(v) rftfae Spccial Act towluch the appeUants deiued. On conclusfoa of trial, fhe Special Judge heM fhe appdtonts gvdtty of fhc oflfence punishable u/s 341 aad 376(2)(^ of IPC and scntaiced them as aforemeatuaed. Hewever, fhq? were acquitted offhe charges fi»medu/s 3(l)(xn} and 3(2)(v) oflllBSpedM AcL ,tt is against fhis cMBrietion and senten<«/awanlcd to the appeUants, fhey have fited fhis appcaL (4) The Spwwl Court baaed tfae coariction upoa fhe testimo.cy ofthc prosccutrix (P.W. 1) holding it to be comitiorated byJjwt KaBy Bai (P.W.5) and Maaak Gond (P.W. 16), lurfher con?ob(«atBdbyTula Ram (P.W. 12) and Dfly Kuaaar Sii^ (P.W. 13). (S) Learaed counscl for the aCTieBant afgued (hat of the prosceutrix is aot tTUStworfliy and flie entire piosecutrix would show that either she was iiot sHb.jeeli^ intereourse on thc said date or if fhe sexual m.terocna'se ./-I tt.i.Stat:; ii!i!ii:ii was witfa her consent. He siibmitted that the tiial oourt jgaoied that part of evideDGe cbmpletefy,which goes to Aow fhat qpp^ant no.l was previousty kaown to her and bofhwere in love and fherewas an ftdmissioa fhat prfor to thm incident also, fhe piosecutriBC had plQrsical relatioas with appeflant ao.l for 2-3 tn^ss. He subnutted fhat inviewoftheaboveevMlenceofproseGUtrix,tt»evid«®cejE>fo1Iter wituesses would havc no ;e aad fhe cdHvfctioa vitiates. \. (6} On the otfaer hand, feamed Stete eouagcl opposed fhe ai'guinents aad supported the jud^nent of convictioa aitd oider of sente&cc. (7) I Uave heaid tearaed counsel for fhe pardes at laigtti and have afao perused fhe records ofthecase. (8j It conacs in fhe cvidence of the prasccutrix RatJhikn BM (P.W.l) tfaat atthctimeofieturttfimmtheviU^cAlEtakaitf^ 4.30— 5 p.m., she vras stopped <m theway by flhe prescnt appenants and (he juvenfle offlender mid fhere aflser, she w^ talaen by fhc appdlant no.l to a distant place fiom fhe road. Her saster Isbwari (cousm) was detained by fhe other two co-accused peFSons. She states vide pEuauo.2 fhat appdlaat no. 1 undressed her by lemonng hcr T-Shirt (faxp) and Jeans. When it was doiie IflEe flris, rfie started runmng away towards the road but ultimatefy die had hidden heraelf bcside tiic Nala beiause She wBs xiot wearuqttteclothes. Sfae ftirther stated that after ffais, qppdlai|t no.l got herlaM down pn ttie ground and conunitted sexual inteiicourae agpinst hcr aad •fbea.sbe ran away fiom fhe spot , She statea tlmt tterc aflte.|fliesc;ftK witnesaea nametyJyot Kuawar Bai (P.W.5) and Maiwlc Gkaul (R.a^l®): ^Vtei her on' thc way. It. appeais vide paia 4 af the.enS/^^efjM A^ prosecutorix, that shc was declared hostfle by flie ptosecution on certain younds and tlufc prosecution had tafcen pcEnusaina to cross escamiae her, which was aflowed, and she was caoss-acaxnawd at lengfh by the public prosecutor. In hcr ftirHiffr nnina exninmntion, she baa admitted vide paia 22 that 'appeflant BD.I was pBenoiisly known to Iier as Ae uscd to nsit his sliop fer obtaining Caaaettes. She has furfher admxtted vid^spaBa 'Z3 af her «ax>ssexiumnation fhat ,lvly prior to the incident, once ^>peBant no.l had tetoa her, fiona the coinpany of her fiiead aanaety Bauvaaa, towaids a field leavmg Baavasa on road,and in fhe fieM, they towd each otheratMl fhcy had retumed to fhe road after an hour, where Banvasa was waitiag. to para 26 of her cross exammatkui, sfae has afeciSsxBy adnutted that she was ia. tow'vnfb sppdSsaat no.l. since niuch prior to 'the date of inctdent She has also adinitted that she Iiad physieal idatKais with liim for 3 taaes. She has also adnutted that on the fetrful day, Bear Babainar Nala, both had abt sfcpt as huasband aad wife. She has stated (bat on fhat day, she was oafy involwed m liwe aflbus (/^cw Mo/ia6a4wi0i ^ifcUaatno. 1 diiriag whfc'h, appdlaatno.l hadldssed her. The prosecutrix also stated in paia 6 of licr evidcacc (hat two ofher co-accnsed peraons had also comc to tfae place ofoccunenoe fhereafter,and if she would aot have tzm aw^r fom the aaBl plaoe, they wotrid have committed sexual intercourse ^jamst lua". So flBr as evideacc ofJyot KunwarBai(P.W.5) Eiconca'ned she Itad stated fliat the prosecutdx bad-met bcr near Bldaainar Nala liecausc dte was j prewiousfy kaown to hen At that time shc •waa wearingjundtaimeB;! aiid de Iiad put on cyuwt^ apiece (rfxdofhycin Iier. Ont»ai^j|a|||j| SSsSv, she replied that when abe was 'eouriBg to:'vffltege1 :MoIila'ftU1eg^il|^^|i^g|gj8| W[wst!SSSS'SSSSi her gnd one af fhcm bas-.cwmnutted.iapciuxmIieRft :^ '• '• "• ~' ~ •'^•ss's"&sassa^V!!3isss& ^,!ii;;^K^ ^&s^^'K^ Wi' liltl MiK :1 !.B! <lil. about her sister (cousin). B)r that time, niany peisons gatbicrcd fhere and fhey brought tUS girl (oousia of flie presecutriB^ fix>m fhe plaoe iadicated by her aiid fliereaflier, fhey boaixled a Bus •for reaching to wiBage Mohla. AImost similar evidexice has been giwn by Manak Gond (P.W.16). It is stated fhat he was also accompanyi^; ttyot Kunwar Bai (P.W.5) when fhe prosecutrix had mct her. He has A . . _ _ __ _ corroborated the stoiy giv^Etlqr Smt.Jtyot Kuuwar. llie oflier witeess aamefy Tulara (P.W.12) has bcen declared hostfle as he luia patiy supported flie stoiy xianated by<Jyot Kumrar Bm (P.W.5).airi Bfeiiak Goad(P.W.16). Dfl^>KmnarSmgne(P.W. 13) Iias a]so been declared hostile as he has also iiot ftilty suiq»rtedfhe case ofprosecution. Pl Adautted^', fhe piosecnitrix was agpd about 19 years oa ttw date ofnicMent aml fhere is no dispute aibout it She has adnutted m. her evidence fhatappenantno. 1 was preyiousfy knomi to her and she used to visit fhe cassette shop of this appeDaiit frequcntty aid she had been takea by this ^ipeHant for so many times aad for three timcs, she hal physical rdatioas wifh him. It also contes inliCT' •^ # • ' • • • . • • . • ': . • • ' ' :•••••••• • . statetneat that she was in lcwc witfa appellaat ao. l aad acCOKling to thc cross exammatkai, on llie fetcful day, this qqieflant had kissed her aad on that date, fhey had not slcpt as husbaad and wvSe. She also adautted tbat her Jeans and T-shirt weaEe removed by •tlic appdlaat no. 1 and wlicn sbe ssnp that fhe ofher t»oeo-accused aie coming to hjer, ahe ran emay fpamjthat place wiQt her iindetwear and Chwteri -wifb an appiebeaaio/n 'Qiat tbcy wiU conunit sexual iotercourse sgamat har. On Ihis evMlencc, it fa appareot tfaat cifiia!';] the prosecutrix was HOt subjected to scimal urteictnusc tni tli& sa«|| date, or if she was subjected to it, tfae sanae was -> coasent Otherwlse in Asence ®faay ^caiBR^witfc.UtK ^ threateniag or fcicible constiaint, fhere was no r^sffin wifli the prosecutnx not to resist at <fae time of aemGfvn^ Jeai»and Top and also at the time of kisMag ete., or even at ttic tiaae <rf coannjsakai t«f aBcged scxual iatercouise by appdtaat no.l. llris coBduct .of tlie proseeirtnx cpupted wiBi <he histoiy ofher tove'wiEh qppdtant ao. 1 furtfier coupted wifh tieradinisston for ha»^ appeHaat xio.1 (on3 eai&rtjccasioas supports theAetMycrfeoaseDt, ^r : " - whiah fte tdal Court h^ ctnnptetely lost aight of It appears fhat fhe trial Court was veiy amcb. napEessed by fhe evalence of P>W.5, P.W.12, P.W.13 & P.W.16 tUat they had seen the proaecutnx hatf- naked wifh underwear anxl Ghuaen onfy. Perfwps flie lean»dtrfad Judge took notice of fhe fect as to what nas tfae roason that fhe piDseculrix bad ras. eeway ftom fhe pteKie of occun'eacc in sac'h a condition and she narrated fhc stoiy to thesc wita ss»? ItwouM have becn a gc»dp<^t for reptecang fhe fheoiy bf coBacnti but hwe fhe pioseeutrix UeTsdfadaaits ttiat w&en slie saw that fhe • two ofhCT' co-accused persons are ateo coinn^ to her, wluEh accocAfa% to t^r was a tnae dfliea- comptetioa o£tbe aeasxwQ. iatetcwisaK :by aypeSast no.l, it csafiped up in her inind that fhey •»3lalao commSt seamalt mteroourse with hcr and for this xeasoa, she aaa aw^: fixan the plaoe ofoccurFeiiceevenwitfaoutwcaringtterctofhes. Ifflus-waafhe retsaa for ruamng afn^y fom tfae spot, itsu^ests (hatshe W^nBt WiBing to Iiave sexual intercourses agEuast the other two eio-accused persoias and she raa aw^r fi>r (hc aainc ^xtd in light offlia emdence, thes Circmnstances ofninning away of the pios«;utrix&om <he plaee CK|; oocurreace wiftuwit wearing ctofhes and there aflbM' atectingfni)Bt,?(t(eB otlierwibnesses and disctosa^lhc stoty^to.'QvBm.'wS^y^esySeasasiSfSi^K itptakes no dififerencc, so ftu- as flie fli ryofconseBt^«tjw:K!B|GUIBff3M "'BSBBBBHH »1 Rao 8 (1<^ In thc fects and circumstences of thfa case, tte evKleace of \ _. -.. ' ' prosecutrix does iiot iBSpiro confideiiceoftfato <»tutso as to hoM that ahe was subjected to forcabte se?cual interoonrae by appeBaat ao.l, Rather her conduct aDd admiasfon re^niiag her prevtoiKi Bdationa with appeUant ao.l and the descrqition of fhe mcKleat cleatfy go to sfaow that a possibiKty ofherbdi^ a conscntjng partycasaat be firify ruled out in this case,and.I hoM ft acooidingty. (11| For tbe foa^oing re^aons, it is lield fhat thc prosecution eould not estabUsh its case toeyoBd Feasonabte doubt and fhe convfction of fhe appeltemts u/a 376(2)((} and 341 IPC desenw to be set aside. Acooidmgtjr, thc appeal is aBowed. Tbe coavietion and sentence awarded to ffae £g»peBantsare set aaide. llte appeflants sre acqwMeA offhe charges fiamed a/s 376(2)(tf and 341 ofIPC. It B stated that fhe appellants are in jail. Ttoqy be set at Mberiy, forthfmth, ifnotiiequiredinaayothercase. i Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha ~- Judge / / ^t' .as>