CFooooosgs'ss' 1 \- - M Sinok (S<^A frrfmm^ IN THE. BIGH CQIIE'i' OF MADHIA PRADESH AT JABALPUR GR. JPPEAL MO. r2'r7/ O? 1993. Purru alias Buhel son of Khorbahra; aged/27 years, resideat of village Kherbaaa, PS.Kawardha, Bistrict Bajanancigaon, MP « • " /' 7S. THS SIAT& OF H.P. / APSiLLAIE (IB J-AIL) .. EESPONDEHT GB'IMIHAL ffiiAL, USBER- SECTIOK' 3711-(2)_01? TIB_GKEMINAI.. RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.06 12:43:03 +0530 "!%. 4^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR (Sinele Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kuinar Sinha. J) Criminal Apj&eal No. 371 of 1993 Purru alias Ruhel Vs. The State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT Post for Judgment : t-f I'[.'2,12010 1 --^>- Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge s •^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR (Sinele Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. Jl Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 1993 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Purru alias Ruhel son of Khorbahra, aged 27 years, resident ofvillage Kherbana, P.S. Kawardha, District Rajnandgaon, MP (Now Chhattisgarh) Versus The StateofM.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) (Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure. 19731 Appearance: Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT ( 9.12.2010) Sunil Kuniar Sinha, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17ttl of April, 1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 174/92 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, Camp Court Kawardha. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years. (2) The prosecutrix (PW-1) was a widow. She was aged about 30-35 years. On 21.10.92 at about 4.45 p.m., she lodged a report (Ex.-P/l) that at about 11.00 a.m. when she was cutting grass in her field, the appeUant came there, threw her on the field and thereafter committed forcible sexual intercourse against her. She Crimmal Apueal No. 371 of 1993 was medically examined on 25.10.92. The lady Doctor did not find any external or intemal injury on her body and opined that no definite opinion can be given regarding recent intercourse. Her medical report is Ex.-P/17. (3) The learned Sessions Judge relied on the testunony of the prosecutrbc and convicted 8s sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. (4) Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that fhe sole testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) was not reliable. The prosecutrbs: deposed that she immediately rushed to the village and nsurrated the story to her mother-in-law, father-in-law - Chain Singh (PW-2), Anup (PW-3) and Paltu ete., but they have not supported the version of the prosecutrix. (5) Ms. Sunita Jain, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these argum.ents and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. (6) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of fhe sessions case. (7) The prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed that at about 11.00 a.m. when she was cutting grass in her field, the appellant, all of a sudden, came there and he zintied her saree. At that time, she was wearing blouse & saree only. She was not wearing petticoat. \ Criminal Acoeal No. 371 of 1993 Thereafter the appellant threw her on the field. Her saree was completely taken-off from her body and she became naked. She cried at the moinent but nobody came for rescue. The appellant thereafter committed forcible sexual intercourse against her. His semen came on her saree. When the appellant ran away, she tied her saree and returned to her house. The field was abdistance of 1 Km from the vUlage. Nobody was there near the place of incident. After retuming to her house, she narrated the story to the villagerSj and thereafter she had gone to lodge the F.I.R. along with her father-in-law - Chain Singh (PW-2). (8) Chain Singh (PW-2) deposed that on the fateful day about 3.00 p.m. he was in the house of his elder son. Bhagal Raut went there to call him. When he reached to the house of the prosecutrix, who was Uving separately, Preetam (PW-9) and Paltu informed him that the appellant has committed intercourse against her daughter-in-law. When he asked to her daughter-in- law, then she stated that the appellant has committed forcible sexual intercourse against her. Anup (PW-3) has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed that the prosecutrix had stated that when she had gone for cutting the grass, the appellant has quarreled with her. Preetam (PW-9) has also not supported the case of fhe prosecution. He was also declared hostile. He also deposed that the prosecutrix told them that som.e quarrel has taken pace between theprosecutrbc and the appellant. CriminalADDealNo. 371 of 1993 (9) Bhuneshwar (PW-7) is brother-in-law [jethf of the prosecutrix. He also deposed that at about 1-1.30 p.m., Bhagal Raut called him, on which he went to fhe house of the prosecutrix. Anup (PW-3), Preetam (PW-9) and Paltu (not examined) were there. They told him that the wife of the appellant and the proseutrix always used t6 quarrel, therefore, what tp do. They also told him that today also some quarrel has taken place. The prosecutrix (PW-1) was also present there^who said that she wiU go to lodge the report. He very specifically deposed that the prosecutrix did not disclose that the appellant has committed sexual intercourse against her. (10) In Para-5 of the cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted that her Geld was near the road. It was the bazaar day of village Kherbana. Kherbana is a big village where hoUer-iniU, oil-mill and Qour-mill are there. The villagers of nearby villages used to come to their village on bazaar day. After leaving two fields from the place of occurrence, there is anofher road to go to village Gangpur. This admission of the prosecutrix shows that the place of alleged occurrence was near the road and it was a busy road. The day on which the alleged incident took place was the bazaar day and there was possibiUty of crossing the villagers from the said road at the time of the incident, because according to the prosecution the aUeged incident took place at aboutll.OO a.m. Apart from the above, fhe witnesses to whom the prosecutrbc narrated the story have also not supported her version. Even the real brother-in-law '^. -tl ^./ Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 1993 {jethl i.e. Bhuneshwar (PW-7) clearly deposed that the prosecutrix did not disclose that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse against her. On the contraiy it comes in his evidence that some quarrel had taken place between the prosecutrix and the wtfe of the appeUant, therefore, she expressed her desire to lodge the report. The prosecutrfac also did not disclose fhe story to her father-in-law Lmniediately. In fact, after sometime when fhe father-in-law was called and he asked from. the prosecutrix, then only she disclosed the above incident to him. (11) The version of the prosecutrix is also not corroborated by the medical evidence. If the forcible intercourse was committed in the manner described by the prosecutrix i.e. by throwing her in an open Geld in naked condition, there was every likelUiood that she would have received some extemal injuries even like abrasion etc., but no injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrbc. (12) It is settled law that if fhe version of the prosecutrbc inspires confidence of the Court and it appears to the Court that she is a true and reliable witness, there is no necessity of corroboration of her version and fhe conviction can be based on the sole testiraony of the prosecutnx. In the present case, fhe version of the prosecutrix appears to be highly improbable. In a day time at about 11.00 a.ni. such incident on a road side field will go unnoticed on a baza.ar day of a big viUage raakes the evidence of the prosecutrix suspicious. Moreover, her evidence was not corroborated by the other witness, as most of the witnesses have Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 1993 tumed hostile and even the real brother-in-law (/eth) of the prosecuti-ix has not supported her version. (13) For the foregoing reasons the version of the prosecutrix appears to be suspicious and it does not inspire confidence, fherefore, I am of the opinion that fhe conviction on her such testimony was not possible. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible intercourse by the appellant on the date of incident. (14) In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appeUant u/s 376 IPC are set-aside. The appetlant is acquitted of the charges fraraed against him. It is stated that the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety stands discharged. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vattl