’t , fr ._ ~‘ 1 r#*\¥¥~¥¥g Wwyywzaaygwf * \ x unqle bench (/Lnrnmal r‘ I N THE HI GH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JASALPUR ' i/(7% CR .APPEAL NO . / 94 Appellat/In j ail n Shankar Lal,son of Komal Satnmahi.aged about 24 ’ years, occupation, Security Guard,Resident of Bhanpuxp'. Police sta- tion Khamtras distt . , Raipur, M. 1). VerSuS J Respondnt : y State of M.P. / X CRI’ill‘3A APPEAL UNDER SECTIGN 374 (2) OF THE 1\L CD CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973. 1 W ~ / , / e OE OF ILASPUR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B (Hon. r. Justice Pritinker iwaker) Crimil Appl No. 1102 of 94 M D na ea 19 Shanar Lal VERSUS State of Madhy Pradesh RESPONDENT a Shri ArunKochar, counsel for the appellant. Shr'LRavindr Agrawal PL for respondent/State. F THE CODE OF CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 12! O (5.0.2010) This apeal is dicted against the jdgment and order dated 4.0.94 passe by Additional essions Judge, Ripur in, Sessions Trial o. 41/1994 conviing the accused/apellant for te offence punishable under Section 376 IC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisnmnt for sen yea. oe ev rs 2. ase of t prosecution in brief ishat on 28.09.1993 FIR Ex. P—5 was lodged by te psecutrix (PW-7) aged abot 21 years alleging that on 26.9.1993 hen at about 10 p.m. she h'come out of her house to “awer the call of nature, accsed/appellant came there, caught hold of her a and by gagging her mouh took her to the near by kitchen garden and committed se intercourse with her. 'Further case of the prosection is that at he relevant time the precutrix was not keeping well. 3. So as to hold the accused/apellant gilty, prosecution has emined 08 witnsses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was lso recorded under section 313 of the Code of riminal Prcure in which he denied the carge levelled against him and pleaded his innee and fals implicatio in the case. This apart, two person nay’Smt. Saita nd Llu Ram (DW—1 & 2 respectively) have also been exined y h defence in suppo of its ase. am b te rt c k APPELLANT a CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J U D G M E N T 16 p re u 2819 d S a N ct p h P C he t h ro u 0 w ad I ns u hnd t xual u t os p u xa e a C oed h ‘ ocnc e n 1 s mel b a ate a ., v 4. After hearing th arties the tal Court has cohvicted and sentec e p ri ned th ccus/appellant as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties d perused the aterial availab on record including e judgment impuned. 6. Counsel for the accused/appllant subits that present ppears to be a case of fals implication of the accused/apellant a the prose‘cuix and her usband were residing in the hous f he accused/apellant and had not paid e ent for prius four mohs and tt when th l mde dd mne ta o a gd ns h H fu s t ec p he rlx n . s e h rotio r Int ij er y dditio, n mits er i s l din o e m a e p s tr h e o t p th r evo nt ha e accused/appelant a a eman for oy owrds rent, a false reprt hs been lode agait im e rther ubmits tha even the mdial reort of t prosecut does ot upport to th case of te psecun as no external o ernal nury has been found on h bod Anally counsel for the appellat sub that the s two day deay in logg the FIR n the part of the prosecutrix which has not been properly explained by he prosecution. 7. On- the otr hand’ counselfor the respondent/State supports the impugne juden ad submits that the delay in lodging the FIR has roperly been explained b the proscution saying that the incient had kn lace on 26 13 and as the proseutx was threatned by the i accus/appellan of re consequences and furter that h husband had gone ote the llage a mate afte ce bck on 28.9.1993, the report was odge by her. According to the Stecousel as the pro’secutrix’wax a married lady, question of receiving injury on her body does not arise. State counsel submits that the defence has utterly failed to prove the case of false implication of the accused/appellant for non payment'of rental amount by’thé’p'ro's'ecutrix 'o'r‘he‘r'husb’andi... ' ' 8. Prosecutrix (PW 7) has stated in her evidence that she was residing in the house of the accused/appellant along wrth her husband and on the\ date of incrdent she was all alone in her house as her husband had gone i to her parents house and while she was returning after answering the call of nature accused/appellant came from behind and by pressmg her mouth took her to the nearby enclosure and after making her lie on the ground committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. According to the statement K ; . a e aed an m le th g t he ' d gmt n p y e d , tae p 9 99 cri e edt di h er usrd Vi nd imedily r he am a ld atn 1 A , i i -3— of the prosecutrix, she was threatened by the accused/appellant of her life in case of disclosure of incident to anyone According to her on the date of mcrdent she was Ill and was not a consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant and that Immedlately after arrival of her husband she had disclosed the InCIdent to him and then the report was lodged by her. ln paragraph 7 of her cross examination she has denied the suggestion of her not having been subjected to rape by the accused/appellant or that there was any dispute- between her and the accused/appellant regarding demand of rent Though the medical evrdence of the prosecutrix is not posmve there appears to be no reason for this Court to disbelieve her VIVId statement describing the inCIdent in detail. Moreover, statement of the prosecutrix has been duly supported by Alakh Ram (PW 2) and her husband namely Mansa Ram (PW-8) Dr A P Padarha (PW 3) who had medically examined the accused has stated that he was capable of havmg ‘sex T R Sahu (PW 4) ASI who had registered the FIR and S.R. Koseria (PW-5) who had condUcted the investigation have supported the case of the prosecution. \s 9. Thus having subjected the entire evidence available on record, the statement of the prosecutrix appears to be trustworthy and inspires full confidence of this Court The defence has failed to eliCIt anything which can make this Court discard the eVidence of the prosecutrix The plea of false implication for demand of money by the accused/appellant also does not satisfy the conscience of' this Court Thus the judgment impugned conVIcting and sentencmg the accused/appellant as detailed above being in accordance With law does not need any disturbance in this appeal 10. Consequently, the appeal being without merit is liable to be dismissed and'it is dismissed assuch: Asthe‘appellant is already on bail, ' his bailbonds stand cancelled and he is directed to be sent to prison for serving out the remainder of the sentence. (“W . l ' Ctll- l Prltmker Dlwaner, l u Judgel \Y “ f