XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T f^Tt^T STR^T '^RW^ftcT VI- T ^ ^^ ^l<41d14, ^•al<i<i<o, fQ«yii^y 31T^T 'q^? ^TR^IT^W^ "WI, 200 3TI^T'^TT^R ^rf^cT (In Jdl) Vs Jd Sirigh, obout 26 ^ . Stdajon J^ Std-e of ^ Jonjglr, Dij Present: Mr* Ashok S^arnkcir, Advocate ft Mrs, Madhunisha Singh, Panei La^yer OR A.L .1 (4th Oc^ . J: 4^2 This criminal appeal lc conviction and ord@r of sentenci Additionai Se^gions No.441/03 ^hcreby icQrne.d Ad^ tha appeSlant yHaer Section undergo.R.I...foT 7 months ,A 6..^ him.'"" " -• •'• • : Thc; appeilant Sections 450 & 376 of the IP^ prosecutrix on 9.8.2003 fft- 4.0C1 prosecutrix and committing r^ prosecitt'ea ^prf^pf^T 'w^ff ^ f^si' <RI^!< ^ ^3Tf^R ^TT^T •EAl 5/0 Prithvi @QW€Singh, Aged gars, residsnt of Village Sukli, Poiics ijgjr5, DJstrict Janjylr Chdmpa (C.&) "hhat'tisgarh, Through Police Statlon strict-Jonjgir Champa (C&) 3r the appejlant. for the;respond€ntauStatg. U &©ME N T dlrected against the jydgrnent of 3 dated 26th March, 2004 passed by Judge/ Janjgir in Sessions Trial litiona! Judge has convicted of the IPC and him to ays, the.pc'r.iod aJTeady.undgrgone by for the offencc punishable under for entering into the of the 'a,m., thcreofter fordbjy taking the ,pe i^ith her, Hoi^ever, during the XI-HC-22 ~5^ -^WM^, ^Tl1<1^<o, f^^lt^y ^ + StT^T 'CRTc^ ^T^T'^1 'f^TW 3TI^T ^>^i<=h ^lfiTT l— NW^r^w^"""""""***'"*"**'**""*'****'^ 200 'fN^s?' ^Ti^T'^cIT^R ^rf^T -2-- ^F^fepfh 'RTR^ff "^ fe^ ^psl^K ^T'STi^R'3:iT^T pendCTcy of trial the prosecittrix died before she couid be examined and in the^e circumfStQnces tle trlGJ court did not beiieve the verston of the...^itness€S regarding sqme to be hear-soy evide informatJon given by'the pro appeliant has convicted of statement of PW-4 l\| the pro^ecutrix Lcarned counse! for wjtnes^cg are the child witd there are materia! contradi^ entcred their and forl not examined and in th nat to have acted upon th^ hotding the appellant guilty os| ^he commission of rape cong'idering the mce, GS the same wa^ bQSed on thc ^cutn'x to the witnesses. Hcm^ver/ the .under Section 452 of the IPC on the Ikag & PVV-5 Sanjay S.ingh, sws of 1-he appetbnt submits that the above aged.12 4 15 years respectiveiy, tions and omissions in their the to ^hom th^y cJiscbsea3 the fact that the Qppeliant It:ibiy took their mother i.e. Ramesh, has circumstances the trial court ought .tegtimony.ofthe.chijd for the offence. ".'.. 'O-n'the other hand", courtseT'for'thc State hag thc impugned judgiiient. I have heard jearnca* ^oynsel- for the pQrtie^. I have the,. inipugned .Judgnicnt- as ^l^o . the oro.i cTnd documentary evldence avaiiabtc on record, T XI-HC-22 ^Ti^T^T R-1J4) 3TR[^T ^^i<=h ^[ft?T j^e^L -^5c[ ^t|<41d<4, ^Tl1<rl^<5, f^<rtl^<l< ^tT^r <sra^ •WH^iT'^W^' "W^ 200 ^STl^T "^TT^R: ^rf^I -3- thch Sijigh Vikas Singh (PW-4), wS( that on the af incidetitl gleeping mth the prosecl mg.rning he.woke 'up dfter woke up and both of by llft'mg her bodily. They thrcotened them. This ^'ag nd further narrated to th out^ide and aff-er some tlme is the statement of Sanjay Sijigh In the crossMtexamlnGt3on not abje to elicit anyth| makc therrs ynreliabfe. No cot out in thc cross-exaniinQti^ confronted from their eariii there is no iltegality or infir^nity the appeilant ha^ been convi^ted oftheIPC. In the result, the di^missed and it is hereby dte|TsJss€d, °^TZ?f^pfrT 1RTR^Tf ^ t^T2t <[^l^l< '^31^^q·^3n^ ^o is gc^n of the prosecutrix, has statcd he abng i^ith his brothcr Sonjay Singh litrix in the honie. At about 4.00 in the h^aring the shauts of his iriother, Sanjay ew/ the taking their mother ^topped him from doing so, hoi^ever, he Irrated by them to the neighbourers and lelr father after hls return from the thdr niother returned ^eeping. Simitar (PVV-5), about 15 years. of above i^itne^e^ the defence hag i|ng ^hich digcredits ther statement or i|itradiction or ornisslon pointed jn, as these ^itnesses hove not i^r statement. In thcs-e cjrcunistances, in the iinpugnBd judgment ^hereby for the-offence imaer Section 452 mi being devoid of merit is Sioble to be Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [Tfr^ v.^ ^