L. S'] an^l qii R;-)!* w sn^i Sa^n* -s^-RqpncTit, ^i^ly'ito, isRTC(y 3il^?I •qaq? (tclfj,af??) • (In Jail) 'FSPCUrsFM Radhu Kew^at, son of Narottam Kewat, aged about 25 ^ears, resident Viliage Mongrapat', saHara, t'istr'ict A'lahasamund (C.&.i D C Ve State Bo.gbahara,| Pr Ailr, Vinod Lalchandani, Advocate f^r the appellant, Mr. N.K. Mehta, Pyrssl Luwygr fo^ -th i^ t^|ti! Thiscrtmind appeat is dlre and ora'er of sentence dated 8.9i wherebyiearned 2 Additionai Se| the appeliant under Section 376 sentenced to uridergo R.I. for 7 f ;fauh- of t of fine to unde Case of the prosecution, in ^ a.m. when the prosecutrsx was aioi^ to work,the accused came to her and thereafter committed ro.pe wi| the prosecutrix to her mother Ur| p!uce uf iwork. Her rnother eonv^nso ^N?pfrr'wsaf <i fea ^resR Chhotfisgarb. Through; P.5 Di'sf-. .Mahasamund {C.G.) ie resoondent-Stat i ?\ S. *.* E &.1 „? y' s? ;¥'a e r'*§ :ted ugainst the judgment of conviction \2 4 passed in Sessions Tria! No.11/03 ^sions Judge, Mahasamund hiss convicted Indian Pena! Code (for short 'IPC') and |ears and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in hgo addltionu! R.I. for 4 montns. irief, is that on 26.5.2002 at ubout 10.00 ^e in her- house ond he" mother had yone house on the pretext of asking '&uduku' fh 'ner. The above fact w'as disclosed by' }rtila (PW-1) when she returned from the |ned u meeting of eiders in the vit'luge, Gi.PRJ—FS/78— ?/200( -50.000. J nn; :^.- p ^ ^.-"J" sn^i qa !<-ii+ ^g)511<tt Wfl T5T-<ii'4id<<, a-aiy'is, fsKnK-iy,< sn^l ww ('yi'l'1'^?) -^r iwwdVBi', !iiy Ui-L.u^ytJ dld iiul ui the report of the incident on 2 During investigation, examiriation to the Communit'^ sarqal (PW-6) examined her an< the Drosecutrix i.e. Peticoa investigation were atso sent Sclence Laboratory, Ratpur an< After completlng investj investiqation. the prosecution stctement of the accused was which he denied the evldence and pieaded innocence & fsl Searned Addittona! Sessions respective parties, convicted Para-1 of fhis Judgment. Learned counse! for Thel prosecufrix has argued that ttf accused commttted rape wlth h room of her oiwn and there isl accused. Report if/as lodged af1 convincing explanation for the the accused dld not threaf herj $4 Wjferih inwft'"?^S (fat^K itei'ld !!lte *n-B <-.-1^- riiKs! iri^i u7^u tner'eTsr^^ sne iOuggi ^5.2002 (rt about 10.00 p.m. •he prosecutrix 'A'as sent for rnedica! Heaith Centre, Bagbahura where Dr. Alku jave report of Ex.P-6. VVearing appareis of , Sari, and vagina! sSldes seized during Ifor medics' examination. to the For-engic jthe report of FSL is Ex.P-!7. jafion, the churge sheet was filed. burini sxamined 10 witr<esses in a!! and thereafter t'ecorded unde" Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, in {ivailabie against hl"n in the prosecution case se impiicQtion due to animoslty. S-lowever, |€ dfts lear 'i for the 4nd sentenced the appellant as mentioned in appeliant referring to the statement of the e prosecutrix did not raise alarm when the ^r and she kept quite. She watked iiiside the |no allegation that she wos dragged by the ler 36 hours of the incident and. thei-e is no deiay. The prosecutrlx has' u!so stated that Similarly her rnother Ut'rniia (PVV-l) has also G1.PRJ—FS/7S-3/200( -50,000. ^rT'i|nw P^j—' '?, ;5t, i ^;' ..-ff- ai^r ^i ft-ii* '75T ^FIRTiT, ^TftCTTS, 'f^RTRTy sn^i 'q^? C^32iS?) -^ STated that her daughter had Toid 11 incideiit and thus from the conduct prosecutrix u/as the consenting par1| On the other hand, iearne4 impugned judgment has argued th^ nart-ated ubout the same to he of work and had she been a consenlfi to narrats the incident to her moth accused during trial that the repi seen by others iivith the accused 4 corroborated from the statemen-1 examined the prosecutrix and four| noticed a iaceration of size lcm x the hymen and the prosecutrix u'as| positive, as human sperm has beer^ er that she dtd not shout at the time jof the prosecutrix it is eviaent thut the or I have heard learned couns &r. AtkaParga! Ti- it £. t'v'-O}. stated that the accused came to H qiNOTh w^ff ^ fs'ss tFoi^K ^K afiffl a^s counse! for the State supporting the ^at ufter the incident the prosecutrix scjther w'nen s'ne returnea' from the Dlace i1|ing part'y, there was no ocGdsion fw her h^r and there is no defence faken by the "t ivas iodged, as the prosecutrix was tt the time of inddent. Her version is of &r. A'ka Pargal (PW-6) who has jd one abr'asion over cheek ond has uiso fcm near hymen, swe!iing a bleeding in suffering from pain. FSL report is alsc found on the wearing uppareis of the >^! for the parties, I have perused the ;nce avaiiaDie on r-eco"a. impugned judgment as u!so the evid^ Convlction of the appe!lant| prosecutrix (PW-9), he" mother Uritnita (PW-1) and a!so on ths statement of is based on the statemetTts of t'r Fhe prosecutrix (PW-9) in P^ira-2 of her deposition has categoricuS!y te she ivas s* -ne G1.PRJ—FS/7S-5;200( -50,000. d;nis'*liii!*i*"r'[r- ..-^'T6^, i\ '(; S^s-SSS-!. 1 ;| '^SIS^ j "»»<-a;;:^ Roshan/- '3'ST'^TPfra?T, »xTi<9<IS, fsf^fRiy sn^T^^Cyt^^) Veranduh, caught hold of her h Since no one was present in th The accus-ed did not threat hei away from her house. She has her mother and to!d about msi lat was convened in the village, hoi after meeting she lodged the r^; the stutement of Dr. A!ka Parda! of the prosecutrix and pain. Araument of iearned col the urosecutrix is sugqestive tf accepted particulariy In view ofl party, there was no occasion fo^? after the incident in the el cort-oborated from the stuten^ Injury over her private part person of prosecutrix, who is a In the result, the apjiea! pr substance, the same is liabie to| jind, took her inside and forcgbiy raped her. ^ house,therefore, she did not raiss atarm. and after committing the c.ffence he went tlso stated that ufter the incident she ivent he incident to her and thereafter nieeting jyever, the occused had fted thereaffer and Her version is duiy' corroborcn'ed froin (PW-6), who has found in.jury over vqgina '/enin <n< for the appsSJQnt that the conduct of she was the consenting par-ty cannot be fact thot had she been the ce.nsentini ;r to narrate the inddent to her mother Moreover. her statement is duiy of doctor who exarnined he'r and found thus, the presence of injury' over the 'ied lady, beiles the defence of consent. •eferred by the appsilant has no dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Gt~JRJ—FS/7S-5/200t -50.000. +