’ Prahlad Sahu, So Mouji Ram Sahu, aged 50 years, Occuation- kuli mazor, R/o Village — Gonaon, P.S. hamtarai, Distt. Raipur , Madhya Prades — Smt. Kiran Jain, counsel for he appellant. Shri Pradeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. (Delivered on 8/2009) 1. his criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and T order of senten dated 3rd April 1999 passed by the V Additional '~ Sessions Judge, Raipu in S.T. No. 241/1996, whereby the learned dditional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.0/, n default of payment o fine t0 undergo additional R.I. f 15 days. ‘ 2. The prosecutn stor, in brief, is that on 26.3.1996 at 2:00 o’clock in t noon, the prosecutx being ill was sleeping in the room where her fther-in—law (appellant) was also sleeping. Appellant taking advantage of her loneliess came over her bed and forcibly committed sexual 5Q intercourse with her. He also threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody. Prosecutrix after some time came outside and narrated the incident to Beldar (P.W.8) and she accompanied with Beldar went t0 her maternal home. She disclosed the complete incident to her mother. On the same day she lodged FIR in the Police Station — Khamtarai , District — Bala‘gpiir RS» The police started investigation. The prosecutrix and appellant both were sent for medical examination. On prosecutrix examination a minor abrasion on her breast was found. No other evidence to support intercourse has been disclosed by medical officer. On medical examination of appellant he was found competent to commit t sexual intercourse. Statements of witnesses have been recorded under M‘ 9 , i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH , BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR, J. Criminal Appeal No. 130” 1999 Appellant / K h Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh, through District Magistrate, Raipur p do g Respondent Present: t J U D G M E N T _u__ ce r A t 10 i f or io y he ri a n e case to learned g? Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. . Learned Additional Sessions Jud and 506 B of the IPC against the e appellant, who abjured th \ falsely implicated in the case. ge framed charge under Section 376 i appellant and read over and explained e guilt and pleaded that he has been counsel for respective parties sabove. f- the record of the trial Court. Science Laboratory (p FSL }, Basanta was not examined by the prosecution. Thus, this fact has also not been considered by the trial Court. 8. From perusal of the record it is evident that to support prosecution story, only statement of prosecutrix is there and the other Witness adduced by the prosecution have only deposed that they came to know about the incident from the prosecutrix . When prosecutrix’s statement was not dully corroborated by medical evidence and FSL report, Ex. P- 16, it was necessary for the trial Court to scrutinize the statement of prosecutrix very minutely which learned trial court failed to do. Contradictions and omission brought on record by appellant are as under. 9. Rameshwari (PQW.2) in paragraphs 13 to 17 deposed that- ?3. §9rgmnmawammhrwmsas€rnww awstTWWWI—s’m‘ I "wuswsigmémms’rxqa‘ WWd—?ea€fw%€rwwawwm Ia?rg%¥{® WWWmfmqewsmsusmmie"ttm.q%w§ mwgm‘mffwswnw,mwwakw¢r% wamnasn’tw” |$WH§H§W§€T§WWH§ WIWaM 2x. dawwmda swm%“?fsttram%awww WE1§$WW§T$WIWEWE€BH§R§H§W3$W wwww l§awghswmdzwhwwmsw wWm%"%wW%Wmwma‘reWWWW, Masaé‘fw,§%m%aiitf%m,waa§§a€rwwww Hawtrhwwaéia’mWI w. tagmWawirii?ffugamm2t%“mwsiwW WW,%,H%,W§W%W%WW&IWEH€TW%, a‘rWWH—ztfwm l§WWWW§H$WW Wn?#u§wm$%"%m€r?wwe$wm$mw a1 l "usmuha‘apfmai‘rithwwa’é‘rWWI i? %%Wmu?@wya§iéitdu§wéhfr%"w# W%WWW&WW@|"U%H§WH§W%,€I wweaaamm reageawmmsamswew W$ieirnéeéim,uha§wa€rw%,€rmwta€fw W I 2x9. mwWW%?www€rz§u€wmd%“m aaswwaiwew%gam$a§%wm%&amw F edeWEh—atr I"u%usm:r§fi?wtr%a‘rwwea€fw 1 t. J “yam yer uwwwwm m ‘ m|§5rgmmméizqém¢h$fw€%agw%$fa§ mm%mma§mm$ma%wqém%mwa§%€r wWwwmm|"ufau§wa€fW%a}Wwww W I%Wgm%m1i#?q$wga§§2 u§w€f§r“§ wnT%Wqgéi?€r§Wm£rq&mwwm9fr Wagam HEH§W%€[WW§HE%WW I” From above contradictions and omissions, it is clear that they are all on material points. Hence those contradictions and omissions cannot be ignored. Prosecutrix for-not going on her work on the date of incident has taken shelter of her illness. She was medically examined on the next date, but there is no medical evidence to support that she was even ill. Dr. Smt. Richa Baharani, (P.W.16) who found a minor abrasion on the right breast of prosecutrix. In her cross examination she admitted that such injury may be self inflicted. From the Statement of Beldar (P.W.8) it is clear that before the incident appellant had arranged caste meeting and leveled some charges against the prosecutrix and on the request of prosecutrix father he pardoned the prosecutrix and took her back to home. From the above evidence, it is clear that there was previous animosity between prosecutrix and the appellant. Prosecutrix’s statement suffers from serious infirmities of contradictions and omissions. Before the alleged incident she had enmity With the appellant. Medical evidence and FSL report contradict her oral evidence. Therefore, having considered all these materials which learned trial Court fails to appreciate in proper manner. I am of the View that the prosecutrix had motive against the appellant to implicate him and therefore, her infirm statement alone cannot be believed to be true. Having considered all these materials, offence alleged against the appellant cannot be held to be proved beyond doubt. In the result, the appeal succeeds. Conviction and sentenced recorded by’the trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. ISd/_ 5v i R.L. Jhanwar Judge