. $ i WL 200 W "Cg’g Mo‘ 311/04 mm (W) WWW wwifgém awfmm SB: EGIWELE Siiw §§IRE TJ Apvm LAN’I‘ Pa i’aJ RE’PGIV‘DENT $ f 1 9- 1 1-2U57 Shri AK Prasad, Advocé Smt. Madhunisha Singh‘ '2. This criminal appaal i conviction and ord€r 01 senmn 65 / 2003' Whergby Earned Ramanujgajij, Digit. Surguja Section 323 and 3'76 of LRC. mMi§HFA, . um»lies war (£3, 1&0, age z‘ ndgm, RS. i) Lte of Chhattisgarh, through Ponce mm muall?” :tion Sanawal, Dkff. Surguja \V‘JI as, for thE appellant. . Panei Lawyer for the State. s directed against the judgmeht ot has convicted the appellant under sentenced him to undergo Rf. for l year with 13115 of Rs. IOOOI— and to luldergo RJ. for 10 years with 13116 of Rs. SOOOI— respoctive ce datec‘i 27-2—2004 passed 1n Additionai Sessions Judge ST N0. (FIB) , and in defauit of payment of hue to further undergo R3. for ‘3 m nths and 1 year. Boih the Seniencee have been directed to run con 5. Case of the. prosecutio , in brief, is that on 223-2002 the prosecutrix, a girl of about ‘3 to 14 years had gone to Forest for m‘rentiy. 4). The appeliant had also go1 e to graze ms, buffaioes. The appeilajlt d ' l T HW,W,W 5'4 AND . gzz/Oéy h). abused hm“, he assauhed the aiso assauited on her cheekrby fist and thereafter dragged her upto a ditch and committec‘i rape Wi «Jim incifient to hm‘ motile Kmnshndar and other viL .w; S€ptember, 2002 at about 4 prosecutrix‘was salt Ior m Centre, Sanawal, where Dr. rCport of EX. P- 15. tine was NLKL Jain (R‘w. 14) examm compieting investigation, c ¢ 4. During mat, prosec thereafter statement of acc evidence appearing agamst innocence and false impnc and Jagmohan (D,W. 2) 1n n1 5. The tn‘a‘l Court after n the learned counsei for the parties has convicted and sentenced the appeiiant as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 6. Learned counsel for th appeiiant submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove mm W gamma, W wFSIsg— 8/2007 -—3o,000, ’1) Lh her. The prosecutrix narrated about r RW.‘ 21' Devman, father RW. 57 agers. Report was lodged on 23m 11.30 am. During investigation, the edical examination to Primary Health aniu Ekka examined her and gave n‘er‘ so sent for ossification test Where Dr. her and gave his report of EX. FJ-g After e sheet was flied. g examined 21 Witnesses in ail and n was recorded in which he denied the im in prosecution ease and pleaded n. He aiso examined Heeraiai (D.W. 1) defence. age of the prosecutrix that she was e __'..U they started running. However after getting tired, the prosecutrix sat on the ground when the appe hant caught her. When the prosecutnx orosecutrix on her back with a c1ub and ‘ e h u u h a ' o i ' ”g W m wt 200 m m (new!) smart EmW wm‘m ’ m area are“ WW wrq'df d fee?W . a5 aimm mmor and 13m report of Di. MK. Jain of Ex. P-Q on the basi$ of ossiflcat'ion mst 1'11 which it is; opin€c1 that her age was 1‘3— 14 year, was in variation of 3 veals in ither side. He further argued that the mother of the prosecutrix $e (Rw. 2 1) to Whom the prosecutrix narrated the incident has c ‘egoricaily stateri that the prosecut‘rix Vetoid her that the appeilant sauheci her by ciub. She has beeri deciéxed Jlost'jie bv the prosecution and in the cross—examination also, she has stuck to her ex nnihation-in—chief that the prosecutnx chd not €1i§ciose about commission of rape, He further argued that . father of the prosecutrix hadt demanded money from the appellant and when he did not obh'ge, the report was iodged. Para 4 of the statement of PW. 9 Bantu wae; aiso referred. 7. On the other hand, 1e ed counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment. ts. i have heard 1eamed‘co use} for the parties. i have perused the record as aieoithe impugned j .dgment. 9. Conviction of the ap hant is based on statement of the prosecutrix (PW. 10). W ses RW. 6 Kaiawati and RW. 4 Surajmaniya were aiso prese 1t with the prosecutrix on the date of incident. RW. 10 the prose utrix has stated that on the date of incident she had gone to f0 .st to graze her cattle. Lailan had aiso gone there to graze his buffai es Whereas Surajlnaniya and Kaiawati had gone there to fetch fn‘e wood. When she wawnighiiter ””4 4—._ .. who, _, W am gauntlet, WE ~FS/59) 8/2007 ——3u,mu. e v s i s WW, m, WEE GK‘ ‘3'. NO g2;/OZ? ............................................ ............. . WW 3mm (Want) /'Gi200 mmw mmm mmifwm aswamém grazing, sh€ was piaying with mud. At that tim6, accused“ whereupon she aiso threw chasing her. When she got behind her anti started dragg ugand thereafter threw her undressing her anti himself. by inserting hingi in her n1 t others who had gon€ for grazing, with came there and threw mud at her, d at him, thereafter accused started d iroin running, the accused came g her and took to ditch at a distance the ground and raped her after ‘hen she tried to shout he gagged her h.‘ In the meanwhile, another person ace of incident and on seeing Lallan, e narrated about the incident to her at was convened in her house and on oi EX. P~l was lodged. In the cross— that the accused is frequent visitor of ing fighting with mud, Surajmaniva e wood, has been pointed out in her wever, she has admitted that there is ellant and her father in relation to suggestion of the defence that she was she has admitted that the 1eporLwas was convened in the village and if lodge the report, she would not have lice. Counsel for the appellant has s stated that the accused is innocent any offence in paragraph 10 of her ing the statement of the prosecutrix, 0 ' named Lafian came near the the accused fled from there. parents and thereafter Panc the advice of Panchas rep exammanon she has admitt her home and omission re, and Kaiaw'a‘ti Went to fetch cross-examination in para ,6, some dispute between the some land. She has denied t 1n love With the appei‘lant a lodged only after a meeti Fancnas had not asked her reported the matter to the stressed that the prosecutrix and he has not committed deposition. However, after p , V. i 31W W gamma, uremia 'D FS/59— 8/2007 -—30,000. o h e g I h n n e . u 'e 1 t l ‘h y ‘ d o p o a s WW, m, W 31L W W m....§fi£$g4.&.gnlm 3mm (W) mmm mafaam wmkm WW§WW a3a‘mm \ i am of file opinion that the, ground that th€ prosocutrx Witness and simply becauS€ innocont and he did not'con appeliant when the prosecutm' "5‘1‘ LU. Pj/V. 4 Suralmamya ls boon recorded Without ‘examinati‘on. initiaiiv, she h, howover when some leading ( uestions were put to her, she admitted that she had gone to cohect fp‘e wood with Kaiawati and at that time, grazing their oattie and she saw the prosocutn‘x and Lailan wém accused chasing Kaiawati and she run from there and after some time when they met, the p‘roseeuttix was weeping and on being asked, she‘ narrated that "she was beaten by the accused and thoreafter $h€ was raped in E the defenco, this witness ha record hat statement and she happened in the forest and ’ her about the incident. .o 8 vears old Child Witness. he. has fthe prosecutn'x in her examination-1n- accused chased the prosecutrix atter xereafter they saw that the prosecu‘mx i1. RW. 6 Kaiawati is als corroborated the statement o chief to the extent that the chasing Surajmaniya and t‘t defence has not been abie to Show any F is an unrehahie or untrustworthy she has stated that the accused is gnit any offence wouid not absolve the x has aheged against him. t i0 years 01d Witness. Her statement has administering oath after preliminary he 1 expressed ignorance about incldegit L ditch. in further cross—examination by s again stated that the pohee did not 'does not know as to What incident has 'he prosecutrix did not teli anything to imam em w, mania —FS/59—~ 8/2007 _30§000. ‘7 i N 1 L t S . CMNMZIM mm Wm (W) O\ Hi 200 WWW WW§WW *aiiwm fecutn'x did not state anything more. When ieading questions weara put t9 hm: sha admitted that the prosecutrix told them that the however, m cross-examination S116 haS QEDOS€C1 as p€r UltO anymmg nerSeli. Ler of the pmsecntrix has stated that it the incident after return from forest. he accused that he had demanded Rs. mg report. of the prosecutrix Devman has not secution and she has onlv stated that iaughter with a club. Medico Legal .eeutrrx has been proved by Ur. sunita Le has not conducted examination but she has proved the report pm area by Ur. Mamu hKKa, who has not D€€11 €Xamm€d dulmg U1 m Ill the IEDOIT OI Eix. examination, the doctor foun that redness , swelhng and erosion {WOulld du€ t0 fl'lCUOH} WaS DI S€Dt afOuDd Vagina OI U16 DI‘OSECutI‘iX. Hymen of the prosecutrix W s torn and vagina had admitted two fmgers with pain. There wa WaS W€€p111g DOW€V€I, mE pro 12. FAN. b K3111Su11t1a1”, Iatl’ phis daughter had narrated abo He has denied the defence of t 20,000/ — on the threat of‘iodgi no injury“ on her Cheek, thigha and breast however abrasions we e present on her back and a positive opinion regarding commiss l5. it 13 11116 Ulat m0U161‘ SuppOl’tCd 111$ CaS€ OI Ul€ pTO the accused had beat her ,4 Exammanon report OI the pros enanna (Kw, 10}, however s1 h ‘JW - . man arm gamma, {mama —FS/59i 8/2007 —30,000, appellant has committed rape With her by the defence, she has stated that ring of father and she has not seen P- 15 after OI Tap€ i133 D€€D' g1V€1L ill CI‘OSS— m €Xamination, she has cienicdl that thf: injuriss couid b€ caused b€cause of itching and this Witmiss has smted That hV itching, the biood secrciion is not possibic i‘om vagina. » 14. Defcnce witncss Hecraiai §§i11gh (DW. 1) who is Sarpanch of the viliagc has statcd that thcrc was a quanci between the father of the ’prosecut'xix and the accuSed anti he had imposed penaitv of Rs, buvup on Ramsundar on the compiajnt of the accused anti because of the: above animosity, he faiseiv implicated the accused. This Witness has also‘admitted tha he cannot say for eeltaintv that it is a «i case of faise implication as he ad not enquired from the prosecutn'x. Jagmohan (DW. ‘2) who is bro er of the accused has aiso stated that the father of the prosecutrix h s faiseiy imphcated the appeiiant due to iand reiated dispute. hi 'ti e cross—examination he has admitted that on the date/of incident, t1 e accused had gone to forest and even the prosecutrix and other t girls had aiso gone to forest and he does not know What trans V"? ed in the forest theieafter and the accused has only admitted th " he had assauited the prosecutrix and he did not make any enquiry f m the prosecuttix. 15. Thus from the version o the ahOve two defence witnesses, it is clear that they did not in manner support the defence. {\fter going through the stateme t of the prosecutn'x and futther consideting the statement o" the child Witnesses and also the statement of her father, t version of the pmsecutrix inspire h W ‘ p y h Wm“_as~‘, .i :3