XI-HC—78 ®(I^?('VI R-<i<* ^STT gTT^T shHlcb T5ST "ill-Mlrt-M, SlTflwiS, RlrtWy NIN^I *HI<* WI. 200 SS^V 1^?; (Ijclf^atljtl) ?^nw(if??i 3ii^i HIGH COURT OF CHtiATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CMMINAL APP APPELLANT IN JAIL RESPONDENT Present: Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, cou|fasel Mr. G.KvBeriwal, Dy. ^ ORAIt Dhirendra Mishra. J This appeal is directe4 and order of sentence dated whereby leamed Special Co|Lirt AtrocitiesAct, 1989, has coj 376(1) of the IPC and years. sentdnced 2. Case of the prosecuti(|>n about 3-4 p.m. the prosecuj to the field for collecting gra^i way, fell her on the grouni^ prosecutrbs narrated the incj cm<ii7i41i ''Trq^if 'Ff^st' <^i^i< ^? sifin sn^r ;AL N0. 1504 of 2000 Bahur, S/o Raairatan Kewat, - Aged about 25 years; R/o ' Badgaon, P.S. Hasod, District Raipur, (M.P.) rERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh for the appellantt" -~ - LG. for the State/respondent. JUDGMENT (7th Se^teyiber 2007) against the judginent of conviction 111.4.2000 passed in S.T.No. 382/9S.. constituted under Prevention of pivicted the appellant under Section him to undergo R.I. for seven in brief is that on 18.11.1998 at ibe, aged about 55 years, had gone >s where the accused stopped her on and rapped her. Thereafter, the ident to her son Ganesh (PW-2) and / XI-HC—78 an^r °BI R-iioh ^STT 3TT^?T afflf^ TSSf "i||<<|(?i<<, 0'xf)^'IS, RlrtKiy T41*1dl *Mleb •V^ 209 an^r vw (ij^fg^T) ^aiw ^ifta sn^T Baisakhiijibai daughter-in-law incident to other elderly p| Patel and Sahiram (PW-3)| Police Station Mandir about 6.30 p.m. During) apparel of the prosecutri^ sent for medical Vaginal slides 'of the accused remained arrested only on 22.9.1999| incident. After completin^ in the court of Judicial Hafeoud examinatibn abscondlin 3. During trial the Thereafter, statement of thj 313 of the- Cr.P.C. in ^ appearing against him irj innocence and false implic^tion Coulrt 4. Learned trial respective parties convictj mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for delay of more than 24 there is no plausible '^'I^c'^ft'^ 'RTR^Tf '^,1^^' <i^l^l< ^T siRn aii^r khiijibai (PW-4). She also narrated the ;ople of the village, Sarpanch Murari and thereafter lodged the report in vide Ex.P/1 on 19.11.1998 at investigation the petticoat, wearing |, was seized vide Ex.P/6. She was and her medical report is Ex.P/5. pi|osecutrix were also prepared. The Snd]ing after the incident and he could be i.e: after a period of 10 riionths of the t^ inyestigation charge sheet was filed Ma^istrate First Class, Raipur. pifosecution examined five witnesses. accuSed was recorded under Section ^hich he denied the circumstances the prosecution case and pleaded in the crime. after hearing counsel for the •d and sentenced the accused as |the appellant submits that there is a h(|>urs in lodging the report, however, e^planation for the saffle and the f ] i' XI-HC—78 311^1 ?a ft-fi'ti 'tTSff'STT^T 5h^\c^ 3:5q' ^mvXf^ Bxfli-f'IS, Rl<y»iy^< HWvll (b^lab V^ 200 SK^ft 'W; (ipf^^tT) ^dIW^lfeT SII^T •3 evertin explanation offered by the lodged in the following time of incident prosecutn?j had gone to collect grass, accused, no injuiy was inflj sickle, which appears to be ijirosecution is false as the report was r^ing. He further submits that at the e^en then when she was ra.pyted by the :ted by her over his person with the ^iighly improbable. 6. On the othej- .Jnand, supporting the impugned injuiy over the person of disbelieve the vei-sion ofl remained absconding for ^. therefore, injuiy, if any, suj confirmed by his examinatic|n 7. I have heard learned perused the material availal^le judgment. 8. Conviction of the ap{jeUant the prosecutrix (PW-1) as The conviction is also bas4d where corresponding injuri^s the prosecutrix and the F.S.j 9. PW-1 the prosecutrix year. She had gone to °biifct*il-i t||t)<HI ifjyzt <F»itsi< ^T 3TfTO 3]I^?[ was canying sickle with her as she ^ leamed counsel for the State iudgment submits that ahsence of :Me accused cannot be a~ reason to the prosecutrbc as the accused period of about 10 months and itain^d by the accused could not be aftfersuch a long period. ^ounsel for the respective parties and on record including the impugned is based on the statement of Iso that of her son Ganesh (PW-2). on the medical report of Ex.P/4 have been found on the person of ,. report which is positive. basstated that the incident is oflast tt^e field carrying sickle. When she {t ^_- XI-HC—78 3^ET^tl-i)l<rli<l,a>x{lwi<o, RxtWy HWvit *NI* •••^ sii^i w ft-fi'* ^TSTT '*ll^t ^+t 1: -' sn^yr vssss (iy(-i«i<{ff) T^IRR ^lfta stl^I reached the field, the accij She narrated the incident ^ii<tl?i-4in 'HTOcTf '^,'t^E3t •rfat^K ^TSfRCTSII^I sed/appellant all of a sudden came there, threw her on the ^round, pressed her mouth & neck, mounted on her and rappep her and thereafter, fled from there. 1:0 her daughter-in-law BaisaKhinbai who comniunicated the staie to her son Ganesh. She has stated that because of presjsing of her neck by the accused, she sustained swelling over hef mouth. She has also narrated the incident to Sglrpanch Mu^-ari Patel, Sahiram (PW-3), Kotwar Bodhiram and other-villa^ report in police station an^ .thereafter, she lodged the report of Ex.P/1. This witness has (fenied that due to weak eyesight she could not recognize the ac that she could not resist cross exainination also shel rapped by the accused. T| accused with regard to| prosecutrix. The statemer^ by the statements of her si] retumuig from the field, sU committed rape with her in| to search the accused but c in. However, he got him srs who suggested her to lodge the cused. However, she has admitted secause she is an old lady. In her ha^stuck to her claim that she was lere is no cross-examination by the his false implication from the t of prosecutrix is duly corroborated >n Ganesh who has stated that after e had told hun that the accused has the field and thereafter, he had gone ould not search him as night had set on the next day and tied him but somehow he managed. to g^t himself free and absconded. The statement of the prosecutri|x has also been corroborated by the statements of Sahiram and Baisakhinbai who have stated thaL XI-HC—78 an^T^-fyiw W 3D^¥F*li+ ^ 3^ ^Tptt^T ^TftW^, Rl<?>l<iy< HWv[t shNlch •W^ 200 an^?r "ISTO (4cii'l'!i<{ff) ¥RITW<ti?CTSII^T ^ the prosecutrix hersfelf nar| accused has committed foi injury report also the doct\ over person of the prosedtat| demolish the version given reason has been cited. accused/appellant. 10. Thus, in theli^it of 4 the considered opinion that| statements of the prosecuttlx has not committey any ille^ality sentencing the accused/apjiellant of this judgraent. 11. In 'the result, the < deserves to be dismissed anl ct)l*it<n-41l ^fH<?lf ^fs^ -(.F'l'^K ^Tsifinan^r rated the incident to them that the •cible intercourse with her. In the >r has found corresponding injuries rix and defence has not been able to t>y the prosecution witnesses and no for false implication of the iforesaid discussion, this Court is of the Court below by aeting upon the and other proseeudon witnesses or infirmity in convicting and as mentioned in paragraph 1 ippeal being devoid of substance 1 is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge