BK% •%':€g'l :..:..;^.<^5S::3a :i ^r'l » HIGHCQURTOKJUDICftTUREGHHATnseARM:BILASPUR [IK; Before: iA^ii mssm ,rj1 .^l'l) <s '"n.-- ^i •^.>. Mon'ble'ShnDilipRaosahebDeshmukh.J. •»'.••' • • • ' • Criminat^ADpeal No.1545 of2000, ABBellanl UmeshKewat Vs." B!e§PO!''^®nt SitateayMatlhyaPradesh <N6wChhattisgarh) Present: ShriABhayTiwaifclearnedcQunselfortheappeHant. ShriU.K^.Chariclelsl^ai'nedPanelLawyer.ferttieState. * .".1':: •' ., .~~:-.i£i_~y^:.: •~^@-</;.Qg^liMiGMENT^:.:r: • .<•.:: t ^ ;:.l^^':':;;t'^-A];:i:^^lpa|i^i^ ,./ • ;^ ' TKisgpp^l i^i|»st%|;f|igaii^ll»^uc^ ctelwered.By^Shri B.K. StMiwistava,' 1eart»ed Sessiohs Judge, Duig in Sessioh Case No.295 of 1997, whereby the appellant was convicted under SecUon 376 (2) (e) ofthe Indiair Penal Code andwassentenGed to undergo R.I. for 10 y^re and to pay a fine ^ RS.iSOO/-, in defa^ payment offine to further undergo R.t. Ibr three months, (2) Briefly stateid prosecution stoiyis thaton 23-01-1997 at about9.00a.m,,theproseeutrix,apregnantladyagettabouti23yearshad flonfrtothefieldforattoriclihgcalltrfnature.Theappellantcanrethere, forcibly'pushedtheprosecutrBconthegrQunaand mounting hiniselfupon her, cotnrnUted rape on her The prosec G( cameihpme crying and narratedthe jncjdenttc^l^ husl^ntf—Sn^r^ nei8W^r@6i^i:laB||li||^|fi^ 1odgsd;'m^:C^F!^N)i^t|^j||R||»NSI|iE^^ '.'t. :'^.i:^Wi'H^SslB8S8B8Ssafi%i£E^^^^ :'SSX&MS..MMSSS: prosecutrix, Vpon ffl«iiiSI^@!Bin|6i|BB@RM^huri||j|:^^|<S^MyU :i! ,11 -^- i ! ili thatthe prosecutrbcwascanyingafulltBrm pregnancy ofSmonths. She also found that there was an abrasion on her body. No definite opinion about rape could be given by her. The appellant was also examined by Dr. P.C. Deshmukh (P.W.-5) who found him to be capable of performing sexual intercourse. The PettiGoat - article A of the prosecutrK, Chaddy - article B of the appellant, Pubi^ hair—article C and Vaginal slide— article Dwere sent for chemical eXamination to the Forensic Seience t.aboratory, Raipur. However, on none of these articles semen and human spermatozoa were found. After completing the invesUgation\ the appellant wasprosecuted. The appellantabjured the guilt. , The prosecution examiniedas many as 8 witnesses'. No evidence in deferfce'was^idduced. Leamed ;tnal Judge relying upon the unrebutted testimony of the pFosecutrix, which was duly corrotiprated by her hustond Charandas Sahu (P.W.3) convicted and sentdiced the appellant as aforesaid in paragraph 1. (3) Shri AbhayTMrari, leamed counsel for the appellant made a two-fold submission. Firstly, he contehded that the very fact that in the report of Fprensic Science Laboratory, Raipur presence of semen and human spermatozoa was not confirmed either on the petBcoat or vaginal slide ofthe prosecutrix or onthechadclyofthe appellantgoesto showthat the testimony of the prosecutrix is not reliabte. Secondly, he contended that the appellant has already undergone sentence from 24-01-1997 to 11-03-1997 and thereafter ftom 07-12-1999 flll date, therefore, ttie sentence awarded by.ffie learned trial Courtshould be modified and ' . .. : ;~': .•-''.. ;*\1 : :; . ::: ' • : "i: : ' . 1 reduced to the sentence alt'eady undergone jn thei facte and circumstanees of the case. On^flie OthSr hand, Shri U.KtS. Ghandel, :,-l..'l,i>p'l;.::s^'s leamed Panel Lawyer has argueifjn ^ypport offhe impughed !Judgmieht. _j: ww BiBI ss:i ti uS'C" •3s- SK ;l"f.-c (4) I have gone through the record of Sessions Case No.295 of 1997 and considered therival contentions. l have also minutely perysed the testimony of the prosecutrix - P.W.1. Her testimony that immediately afker completion of call of nature byher, theappellantcamethere.pushed her and committed-rape on her is wholly unrebutted in cross-examination. There is absolutely nothing'in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix which would render her testimohy, unworthy of credh; orgive any reason forfalsely impljcating the appellant. Hertestimony isfurther corroborated not only by her husband Charandas Sahu-P.W.3 and Dashoda Bai - P.W.2 to whom she had immediately^on retuming home narrated the incident, butalso by the F.I.R. Ex.P/1 which was prom^dyjodged by her. TheunrebuttedfestimonyofCharandasSahu-P.W.Salsoshowsthatupon being confronted with the allegation of rape with the prpsecutrix the •? ' .: : . •'• ' • appellant had, admiffing hisgj.tilt; prayed to be forgiven. Under these circumsBnces, mere facttiiatno injuries were found on her person or that the petticoat and vaginal slide of the prosecufrix or the Chaddi of the appellant were not found to contain semen and human spermatozoa as per the report Ex.P/12 of FSL, Raipur, would not be sufficient to discard thetestimony ofthe prosecutrix, which is reliableand inspiresconfidenGe. (5) Having thus considered the evidence led by the prosecution, 1 am of the considered opinion that the cpnviction of the appellant under Secfion 376 (2) (e) of I.P.C.is well founded and does not call forany interterence by this Court. So far as the second limb of argumentl advanced by leamed counsel for the appellant is concerned, the|| prosecutrix was canying fullterm pregnancy of 9 months atithe tiniB wli)| |g|i|8 rape wascommitted upon her. Consiclering this fact, 1'8K: "9" ^^•"^y i^^'^S<tB^:-^iS':: r:iin:|"yi^S|jfl||||lg ^£:i -.^ Subbu opinion.thesentenceawardedbythefearnedtrialCourtiswhollyjustified and does not call for any interference. (6) In the result, this appeal has^no merit jind is accordjngly dismi^ed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge vr w . \ ^?:®S6;