SBB HI6H COyRT GWF.eHHATTIS^RM AT BILA5PUR Criniinffll Asweal Nw. wff993 THakdas son ef Sbivratnn t)ns PoniNa <»ged aboyt 35 years, ft/o Jarhddi PS &S'iorpyr, 4is7rict Syrguja AA.P. (Now ffi\ . • . • : . t.f.&r*^' ..: : " - ' . .. ""..•' '•". .' '••' WerStis Sl'ate:' .ff f: ^(KlHyn Pmwfesh.; '-frww^ ^'rti'ntnai' AppeaS unsfer gsctJBn 37'.4 ^2),fff Cr.P^.) ,(SB;; •Hon'bte.Wr. T.P. ShaCTnai.tO'- - Preseht:- ' .. ', ^r.ftakesh^PtiKijdsy, cf. Mr.U.a.ehanj|el,Pffln®lkiwyePfw ^the Stiate/respenifcnl' QRALao^ffliteNT :6S/ST. -.en^ 1. Oialtehge in •t'hts a^eai^'s Ao ^n-tence deriBd 29-9<1993 Ambikcpur, JT! SsSSietris Tnssl No.< Aeyitki»Kit SessiORS 3'uetge con'missionof ni|aBoriyict»d ; ^ Qnd'sentericed: h«R'tB,un^wgo'l*ig< pay fins ,6fffts.Z,©QO/-.:wt:!efau)-t'j; rigerous imprisoRmentfor 1 yeap. 2. Conviction is c<Mpm»ssion ef appellontas 3., Cd^;;of:tfee^prp^ci.iti®f*,'wb('!ef,|tsl"l'|3Efr^Qn- Ri|»y.r^iO)':-H. , ':'.:.' •l':- of cc>nvicti®h& oftiert of |ti^t^tieift° Additioasi!:: ^satfnsjJStss^s, & whsrsunEfet'tsame^'l^': sp:,'h»)tlff(3:'"the'cppei!ari't'|^j1'tyj:[|'»!"i SeetinR^376 of •ri'ielndiaft Pwiat<y»<i •:i: IDroys tlinprisonntBnt fwiO yems & •to fff/pSymiBn* cf fihe to fypthei'" unstet'ga on •thet^jgraurid''that'wi'thaut1. <»%,eviiteneB •):'. ;.-^:.'^-\ ' • .•.^'..'.''.:. '. ; •• :' .^-;^,;.'l .;':.' '!•'-.•".•' .t;'.;,:'',' ,:^ths;'tma!:'iCffurt';B<^|i.ewwic'^i.«Bd^saj^n t.t®..t^6«t-'abButf[S''|.n< pw'xmt^.^^^'%sa^r^':vr^^6j^^S^:^i a^^^e^ her husbeinid h»fgones :* .^'atiBemj ayipeWaFft. A|f-tei*;,|o*Re'8n!'fe,^iSE jroaeeutr'w: aB^iegiM^rt' :MffSit'!W^: :t'SliBBe::ca^e.:taistBNi 'o' !®fl tiel >e: I :! tfee IB ik« RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.07 12:29:07 +0530 -S-- w. r«sistance, fheh Ihe q^llarrt' 1+tasn*^ed her <md teok her t»Idtct'isB sardsri from room wher'e he committed ssxuai inter'course with hep and after compietior! of sewjial inter'cou>*M, he again went to attend Folk dBnce- At'12 at night, husband of the prosecutriK cnme, Ihen -the prosecytrix r»rrofgdIhe inddent to he^ hy •then husband of the prosecutrix^ went tp:^ ,the house of •rt»t;oppe!laHt,a»d't)n-r?Se<»(irf-dny ffloming, panchaycrt- rtMetirig <MS ct?nvs»we[. ^ei^after', •^p^sea.rtnx went -to the potice s'tation ond iQtjged tfe ('epor't vi<fe Exs.P^S and P/4- 0n the basis of wport, tha prosecu+rb< was sent fop meclicai e)<8min(ttt<»('> vtds Ex-P/lA, slre Jf^ ewm^d Ny ^ @?W-l)^y!elfe i^Ex.P/l.i''S)iite;pf'vai(|mal:S!Bear:»^?ta^n.'^The;:<MsatS^ laKej'i' into eustody,'hfe:|«ts,a(s»:;s8Bt'foff: •msimwsViiSt^hv wus;'®wBi!.jne<l:' by Dr.Anuynath A^t^td ^W-^ v^i E>£^2|^d^(^ fou'ul o^wble;; 'MWSweCKO'KdVSi^Sxf/S. • comnnitt'ing seii<uat in'ter'ceijrse. 4. Sftrtententslof.the^t«!tnesses.iwepe::recGi''<fe<l.,ur>dei* SecfwinftS^. ef •Sts <^e of Criromat l^o^duw, K^ ^n snor* Cocle^ ond aftar comptetion erf inyei^gation, charge'she^ v^lfitetf i»forethe ^ AtagistrQ-tB FirstCI( S.~Ambiki^r,^a^to:Wiw^oiTmt'ttedthe^os^ .Ccuri' of Sss^wns, •Asi&ifcipar,,from'isfh^rsj tennned Vf AiIdittonat.SsSstonS ^ Juclge,;Antbik<pi'';"ece>v®d•ri^e,casej&n^!'»m:^er.fartnct.;: :;. ^ •. . . 'j' S. In order to pwv®fke guHtof the^aGcusrf/agpdlant,11ieprosecirtionhciS ewmined'as nuany:;'(S'1t1 WIIT«S^S. •T^e.itcacu^d/a^ examined under Sectiori 313 ofi the C<^ wbere hie dCTiied the circuinslimces.'cppeaping';'«gcmst:^itn^,(^'clsii^^ impficttfion in'thfe.^i^~:^n'':^uesH^^.j;/i^.'^^ ir!9^<lefenGe^^^ fiw'bdds (&W-^ <^fltt«»K»^(1^^ .defence;th^.on.c cwh*jof :ppeviaBs::;«(mi^?wi^;'1tt6-N^ prosecu+rw, tbe:pro®ajtFi?<.ha3;f|n^el^':iW8pti|etedIfte. I;!. --.-.•...^^:-'::..-._»" t- IM• st 6. Aftsr affording opportunity of hesr'hg to the partiss, learned l' Additionai Sessans Judge. Ambtkapur conyidsed <& sentenced the (ippelliint as aforenierittoned. 7. I hnve heard leamed counsef fer "ttie parties, perused Ihe judgment impugned and "eeord of the triat Ceurt. 8. teiprwd counsel for the oppeflant vtthemently ar^ued that pravioHSly husbtBid of •the pro^cu-h'ix was mdrrisc! witlt cinother woman Shanti who left the husbahd sf •riie prosecutrix anc! went to -the house df •H'se tippeltant and she was residing wrth!-rt!ei <!|}pettont cs his w(fe. Qi aceoupt of Shanti, ret^or»fcet^en the pdr+t»s^(«:strcJ!^:(^on( cei^ sucl"' stmin ''Bte+i^n, the {ffwsec^lrix ^widlherhusbtint) bayB fets^y implicwted ths dppeltent ;ni^thfi wtiBe.ln^uestten. The'^ipetltBTt.has m>t 'conimitted: any offence.:: Bven "the'trosecutr'bs^as :not;lmaete nnycrittFnt^yt' thfcthfle ofincsdent, she ¥»BSbwmg an^fe opportunify for hep '•eseae foAt she has.net tried to. a»w hef. .^Ewen otherwise, •the proseeutptx :|is consenting andwiitingperty. ; 9. Oi the other h<md, ledmed StBte eoiinsel supported the judgiw^it intpugned and argued Ihat evidenGe, wf •the prasBcutrix n'ld Blti^1* 1 withesses crs sufficient to proye •tfTe gutl* of tha ttppeliant. The sppellant has wrtmvtwiwKf tisked attsr^ fo\k i^ee and by iit^M^ •ttw feuiefit of lonelirBSs of •fbe pn»%cutri.K,tha present nppel!(m* tias coB'initted the afopBSBid offence. 10.1ri order to n{yreC>ate •tftedr^umBnts I havfstow.mned •tfeelevidwiceadAjeed tl. In the present case, the not statBt! anylhing t»show that time of commissi6r> <?f the e"tcience except •^SKpi'esenc&'sf. be posfiible. • &r.Sffli'hNe®iow^ft^ ondl oojned tha sante thma ytde the busband of ihe prosfccutrix to adyanaed'on behalf of the perti^s, dii beHatfsf the parties. pro^artt-ix {PW^ is a n^ried tody, she hns •StS Bppellant hoiS used wiy fer-ce at tlie s, ••(•herefcire, my posN-ive! medfen in the I-!}. feas^ e»?aBJned•Hie;'{»rQSBcu^FJ)$ waujd ^ v lliill iliUlli 'iB s-a -^- . Mittat yw-2) who has exesmmed the accused vide Ex.P/2 afso reyeats tbnt ths oppgllflnt was capGbte to cemmit sexuai intereourse. The prosecutrix (PW-7) h<is depesed n her evidfsnce. that at nsght the e^pellont along with other persons came te her husband to attend Xarma, 1+ienher husbend abng with (rtfter persons went toattend Nfflpnw. After closing the door di®was steeping in herhouse, she was alene. Thereafter, the appellwt aflBr-ppening -the door ((yenir^ senkhal) entered 'into the house of -the pr-osecutrix ond trfed to ccyght hold her hands and legs, she resisted, then the cypeliont thneatened her end took h<r into k'tchen gnrden where hs committed fopcefullY in'tercourse wi-th hec nntl he Qgnm went to attend Jter'1'Ba. She hes jfar-thep deposed that at 12 <it raght u^en her husbcwd came to her feouse, then she narrated the incident to her husband, her husband went to -t^e house of the cppettant and on ascorid dny morning pnnchayot wiw e<m»er^,.i^^efxf1'^ dw-Vieiiff'1'o'WwB^sKix ststion ond iodged the pepor+. In her cn>ss-«>xwnhTO*i(»h she has spectficalty cdmitted thnt A®has not opened Ihe doftr at'rt'e tinie of co'nwissfon of -the offence. but 11'se dppeltant hns opened ihe tloer, At •tfiat time Ae was steping ond when •rt'isappeSlant touched her, tter? she woke up- At •the time of tatting her to kitchen garelen she tried to shout but the appellant threatened her. Chattu (PW-8), husband of the prosecutrix, has substantiolly cor'roboflated tlT evidence of the prosecut?'ix. ^iuc PW-9), neighbour of the prosecutrw, hcs depogted in his evidence- that they were present in Karnia, but efter sometime the nppettont went back fn'n* Itermn ond after sometime he agam canRe |back urfiere they were pr-esent. When they went to the'r houses, at thatitime the prosBtutrix was weepmg in her houas, •tticnthey asted her, •riie^t she tuld -riisin that oftar opening the dtt!>r,'the qipellfflit hus commtted dssgrace. (^^w»ift) after tssking her inte kitAen garden. Bhurthui (PW-10)has also cfeposed'the anne th(ng. 1 IZ.The cppstttBit hns examinad defence wilnesses 6(K'ibdns (&JW-1) neighbour of the prwsecut!*>?<, • whe has dsposed tbat <m secon^ dtsy mom(ng ponehayat m^ting <^ conyened whe husbondl op the ycr'svs\ <f S^ <.. '? rt^trf iill 5~— ' prosecutrix told th.at the appeHant hcs abused hjs wife. He has further deposed thnt it was n&t possibte to open ths door of the prosecutrix fporp. eytside when same was bolted from inside, but in his eross-examhtatjpn, he. has admittBd that he had neyer gene to the haise of ttie prosecutrix for opening tSe door from outside. AtewnrfflT! (&W-2) has odwitted the faet •that panchoydt meeting was cwivened; Evidaices of &u''btlas (&W-1) and MawafaRt (OW-2) V8al thffltsubstontiaKy they have not tfeposed (mythin^ in supportof the pffosecution or defenc®. 13-The case of •rtie pro^cutior! rests on the evfclence of solttary evidence i.e. pw%0itrix (PW-7) whom the de^ence hasa^gested that Ae te hasopened the door tAich sho<^ Itet' l^ (fef^»has t^ t»make out the case of willingnesS anci consent whteh •H»®prosearfrix has.cteriieit Even olherwise uncontroyertsd eyidence of 6hua(pW-9) shows that when j^ they weregoing *o theirheuses at that time, •fce prBseajtr'ix was sitting h her house and was weaping, riie toid •thnt ttle fl^eilant has committed di^race (^sw;'<ft) aft'sf tiiking into kH-chengardsn. M.&efirsitely on the basis of cnly oiis 3i^irece (^ynaiB), it wouid be difficutt to infer •rt)«fthenppellant hascommitted sexuat intercourse wi-rfi the prosacutrix withouf her wiMingness <md eonssnt but she has | categoricaliy depoayl in her evitlentaithait the <^?petbnt has conimttted | forcefufiy intercourse with her. The fact that the prosecufix was sitling in her House onct wns UBeping ttt night is reieygnt fact under Section 8 of the Evidence A£t,gsthe&ibsequsntncEtuni|conduc1'ofthe (ypellant is compietety suffice the deferxae of wdlti^ness andwnsent. 15. The evidences of the a^>resaKl wi'tr'estes ctear)y;show •that the appeltait 1 had gone to the house 6f the proaecu'trix beferej the ineident far cttUing her husbcnd, theraaftef, he was pre^nt ontiiaptece of Kn!"ma but he teft |(arnw piaceflfter TOmethtie end •H« afl%phe ^pin ^ to ifiarniaplQce. sbe^of tte prW^utir'ixihas t^jed th^ suggestiont o" account of enmity 'they ha^ Ws^^ni^^^ ^e appisi>e^^^^^^^^^^ eyidence flif the orosecutrix 0'W^ is ^ttstonl'ially cwi^otwtsd^^b^ subsequsnt eonAict, evidenees of ChaHu yw-8), hurfsdnel of •the prosecutrix, 6hun (PW-9), Bhurttiul (PW-10) nnd report Exs.P/3 and P/4 which are sufficient for drowing inferaise -Nwt the oppeifcint has cpmmMted forcefuily ihtercoupse wi-rti the pfoat-wWy, withoutjher wilt ondconssnt. 1 ' ' . .'.-.'.. . . ' • •••'•'..•• ^ l6.AftBrcpprectating'ths evideniz, l^ A^iticrri Sessioiw^^^^J^ i^mfaikapur' has rigfctly conyiclsd •the oppeilaRt^ under SeettQn^376' of the (. Bidicm fei^ Code, Gwwi^ion^^t^ cfinditng and (•e!nbfe:evidencesusttMnnb!eiind<irthe !<aw. 17.As regarels the <^estion crf senter^, the tria! C^url-^^h sentencerignrouswpriSonmeRtfQrlQ.years&fine^^^o^ defcult of poymaTt- of fineto fu!"'t('!er tmdergo rigon»us|imprt|>on»i»nt'fe^ lyear.'CorMi<termg;|thelgt^ityl,of'the:of^GB'«^ appelk!nt is fceing +»'tal since 23 y«trs,it requires r^awisidBwtion oinfi mmirimm senter^ of7yw^p^'decti» PenafCodewOuldbe^ajfficientsentgh^ats'ngw'thfirieto 18. C^sequently, Ihe oppetrf is pcrtfy jatlowid. i^srnnetfon df tKe[ uneter %ction 376 of 1+w Indiari IPenat Ccde is flnainfttinedif howeven, sentence of rigerous m^nswmW^^fw:^ ^ywys::i/&'^y^^'^^ Rs.2,000/-, in defauM' of'payina^ of ^l^ -Iw further under§(6,ff<goirous imprisonmentfor lysap is'attered ^rigi^t«tn^risor^ to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, ndefajftof,pByn^t<rffmehesh(il|feP"thfep undergo r!gorousimpFisonAentf&p^fflaivft»j^e^<^^ Aalt wrrsnder for^with ,befor^j^s''l?'i%^t!smett.,^^K!ns.f.^^ Ambiteipur^ or: fits •suctxssw ' jn • ^sf^iee: i^foi-:: ^rvaig, remaiH»g[^^ar'f;^fl 1 . sentence impOSBd uponhimin^sswns'T'^INe,63/87.