CF000005741 0 IN This HIGH CGUBT :1? IHm PRADEH AT JBAI RAEEAL N0. QC”- 90. Dilip Imar s/o Suxhram Samami /age . ‘ / g / L CP ” OF 19 24 yearsR/o Wutser i3 o Arg Tahs1l / Distt Ralpur I PLLNT IN 'JAI Vs 0 he State of Madhya Prde 'T ash ‘ 9, . m . .magm. R APPMLJJ; 32% H}; R P 5 m : giLPfR. / d APEA. ( LY" ‘7 9‘ C } T C . w§\ //‘ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. Amen! No.291J1990 Single Bench: Hon'bie Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Dilip Kumar' Versus Sfa‘re of Madhyn Pmdesh (now Sm‘l’e (if Chha‘rfisgar'h) Shri Arun Kochar, Counsei for fhe appellant Shri Pumg Kofecha, P.L. for fhe Sfufe. JUDGMENT (Detivered on This 16% day of June 2006) This appeal is directed againsi' +he judgmem‘ da'red 8.3.1990 delivered by Shri K.L.Kar'i, 15+ Addii’ionai Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Triui No’ 86/87 whereby The uppeiianf was canvici’ed under Secfioi'i 376 I’P.C. and was senfenced 1’6 undergo rigorous imprisonmen’r for seven years. 2. The fucfuui muff-ix, in brief, is ‘i'hai' The prosecufrix, a minor giri aged abou'f 13 years, had gone To viiiage Kufesar, To The house of her maTernai uncie Baanduram P.W.3 for performing cerTain agricuiTura! operaTions’ Her faTher ITwari lived in village DumarTarai. On 22.12.1986 aT abouT 8.30 AM. while The prosecuTrix had gone To collegT cow~dung, The appellanT came from The nearby; village Tank and forcibiy commiTTed rape on her afTer gagging her mouTh by a piece of cioTh. AfTer commiTTing rape, The appellanT ThreaTened The .prosecuTrix noT To disclose The incidenT To anyone. However;/ The ’@ Z pmsecufrix promp‘rly infarmed 'Hqe incidem 1'0 her mafemai unde Baandumm P.W.3, Dashm‘rh P.W.12 and Jagdish P.W.4 and bdged a prompf FIR. in PoHce S'm‘rion Aamng sifua‘red abou‘f 22 kilomefers west a? abau'f 2.30 PM. on The same day. She was sent for medical examina‘rian. Dr’ Ku. Shabhu Ramanna P.W.1, on examina‘rinn, did no? find any external injury on her person. She also did no? find any injury an her priva'ie parfs. Na defini'l'e opinion regarding sexual inlercaurse by 1he appellan'l' could be given. Pe'l‘ficaa'i' (arlicle-A) and saaree (article-B) worn by 'l'he prosecu‘rr'ix a'l The Time of occurrence were seieed immedia'rely affer recording ihe F.I.R. vide EX’P.12 a? 2.30 PM. Ihe appellan‘l' was apprehended and ‘l'he underwear worn by him was also seized vide EX.P‘13. The pe‘l'i'icoa'r and saaree of fhe prosecu'l'rix and The underwear of fhe appellanf were seni' fo Forensic Science Laborafory for chemical examina‘lion. Vide repor'r Ex.P.16 The presence of semen and human spermaTozoa' was confirmed on The peTTicoaT (arTicle-A) and The saaree (arTicle—B) of The proéecuTrix while no such sTains were found on The underwear of The appellant OssificaTion TesT for deTermining The age of The prosecuTrix was conducTed by Dr. 5.C.Vishnoi P.W.$. Vide reporT Ex.P.6, The age of The proeecuTrix was esTimaTed as 13 - 14 years. The cloTh (arTicle—C) by which The appellanT had gagged The mouTh of The prosecuTrix and lying aT The place of occurrence was seized vide Ex.P.4. Dr. S.C.5hrivasTava P.W.5 examined The appellanT on 23.12.1986 and found ThaT he was capable of performing sexual inTercourse. No smegma was found on The penis of The appellanT aT The Time of examinaTion suggesTing possibiliTy of sexual inTercourse by The appellanT. AfTer compleTion of invesTigaTion, The appellanT was prosecuTed under SecTion 376 I.P.C. 3. The appellanT abj‘ured The guilT, pleaded false implicaTion by The prosecuTrix aT The behesT of Baanduram P.W.3 due To a properTy dispufe and examined Shankerkxl as D.W.1 and Human Das as D.W.2. The presecuficn examined as many as 14 wimesses. Relying upon jhe evidence led by +he pmsecufion and ‘fhe'fes-rimoiw of fhe prosecufrix, #he iecxEned #ria! Judge convicted and senfenced The appellanf as afaresuid in paragraph-1. 4. Shri Arun Kochar, iearned counse‘ for The uppeNanf has argued ‘khaf fhe defence adduced by The appeIlanT clearly esTablishes false implicaTionllo-f The appellanT by The pmsecuTrix aT The behesT of Baandumm P.W.3. The medical examinnTion repor'l' of The pmsecuTrix by Dr.l(u.5hobhu Rdmanna P.W.1 clearly renders The TesTimony of The prosecuTidn unwarThy of crediT. Reliance was placed on Egppu V. 5M1? afzMP. 20G?) Cr.L.R. (30) [MR] 246, Bbaara s/o Ehagiram Ladhi v. 5Tm‘e af MP. 2605 Cr.L.R.(30) {M.P.] 209, As‘hak 5/9 Ramla/ Kumahar @m‘ed V. 51'af'e cf MP, 2004 Cr.L.R.(29) [MR1 805, ‘ Lek/vim V. 5mm 2093 Cr.L.e.(zs} miner; 5mm of MP. y. 5hanfifal 2003 Cr.L.R.(28) (M.P.]:6§&and 51am V. 5umjnia/ 2003 Cr.L.R.(28) [M.P.1‘}1m On The oTher hand, Shri Parag KoTecha, learned Panel Lawyer for The STaTe argued in supper-T of The impugned judgmenT and placed reliance on 5fafe ofMP. V. Daza/ 5a/1u 2005 AIR SCW .4839. Sfai'e of Puniab V. 6urmi1' 5ir7gh and afhers 1996 SCC {Cri} 316 and Bodhisaffwa éaufam V. 5ubfira 6'ha/(raborfy (M$_L1996 SCC (Cri) 133. IT was argued ThaT since The TesTimony 9f The prosecuTrix was naTuml and inspired ccnfidence as iT was duly carroboraTed by Baandu P.W.3, DashraTh P.W.12 and Jagdish P.W.4, The absence of injuries on her viTal parTs during medical examinaTion lay Dr. Kui Shnbha Ramanna P.W.1 was noT sufficienT To dislodge The TesTimony of The proSecuTrix which was wholly worThy of crediT. IT was also canTended ThaT The TesTimony of The prosecuTrix was also carroboraTed by a prompT F.I.R. lodged by her and The reporT of F.5oL‘ which confirmed The presence of semen and human spermaTozoa on L J/I.‘ fhe pef‘l’icaa? and +he suaree of ‘me prasecu'fr-ix seized immedia‘l’aly affer !odging of FIR. on fhe dafe of occurrence. 5. Having heard fhe r§va! confen‘l'ians, I have perused fhe record minu'rely. If is we” sewed ?ha+ in sexual affence fhe fes‘rimony of The prosecufrix is no? ‘i'o be piaced on the same foofing as iha'r of an accempiice and canvici’ion can be based on 'l'he sole fes‘l'imony of fhe prosecu‘frix if if is naiural and inspires confidence. If This fes'r is safisfied{ The absence of injuries on fhe priva+e parts of The prosecui'rix wouid by ii'seif no? be sufficienf To disbelieve her. The oniy poinT which requires considera‘i'ion in This appeal is wheTher The TesTimony of The prosecuTrix is naTural and inspires confidence I have gone Through The TesTimony of The prosecuTrix minuTely. She has given a vivid descripTion of The manner in which rape was commiTTed on her by The appellant Her TesTimony is- fully corrobora'fed by The prompT F.I.R. lodged by her aT P.S. Aarang which was siTuaTed aT a disTance of abouT 22 kilomeTers away on The same day aT 2.30 PM‘ The TesTimony of The prosecuTrix finds full corroboraTion by Baandu P.W.3 who is The maTernal uncle of The ‘prosecuTrix and also by DashraTh P.W’12 and Jagdish P.W.4 To whom The prosecuTrix had narraTed The incidenT soon afTer The occurrence. NoThing has been eliciTed in cross~examinaTion so as To disbelieve Their ‘TesTimony. 6. So far as The defence of false implicaTion of The appellanT by The prosecuTrix aT The behesT of Baanduram P‘W.3 is concerned, iT is wholly unreliable. ET is beyond comprehension ThaT The prosecuTrix, a minor girl aged 13 - 14 years, who had visiTed her maTernal uncle, would. falsely implicaTe The appellanT for an offence 3f rape aT The behesT of her maTernal uncle. As held in ‘Bbarwada Blwqinbhai Hirjibhai v. 5Ta1'e of @jraf A.I.R, 1983 SC 753, in a TradiTion bound socieTy, parTicularly in a rural area, The parenTs of a minor girl would no? bring disrepu'fe noT only 1’0 Weir daugMer buf aiso To The family cf 'I'he behest of anofhzr person. If is also unthinkabie fha'f parem‘s would fui'or Their minor daughfer 1’0 inven? such sfor-y in arder/ +0 wreak vengeance on someone. They wou!d nof do so for fhe simple reasan Thai’ if wou!d bring down fheir own soda! sfofus in The sociew aporf from ruining The fumre prospects of Their own child. They would aiso be expecfed To be conscious of The fraumo'ric effec‘i on The psychology‘ of The child and The disasTrous consequences likely To ensue when she grows up. She herself would prefer To suffer The injury arid The harassmenT raTher Than To undergo The harrowing experience of lodging a complainT in regard To a charge reflecTing on her own chosTiTy. I, Therefore, refuse To counTenonce The defence suggesTion ThoT The oppellonT has been falsely roped in oT The insTonce of The moTernol uncle of P.W.2 who was supposed To hove some enmiTy ‘ agaihsT The appellanT. The evidence of Shankerlal D.W.1 and Human Dos D.W.2 led by The appellonT in defence is cieorly an ofTer ThoughT and foils To inspire confidence. Shonkerlol D.W.1 hos gone To The exTenT of sToTing ThoT The prosecuTrix, a girl aged obouT 13 years is o women of low morals. The defence of The appellanT is Thus palpably false. 7. Sub-InspecTor HarshnaTh Singh P.W.14 has noT only proved The prompT F.I.R. Ex.P.11 lodged by The prosecuTrix buT has also proved The seizure of peTTicoaT and saaree of The prosecuTrix on The same day. The TesTimony of DashraTh P.W.12 also shows ThaT he had gone To The place of occurrence wiTh The prosecuTrix where The piece of cloTh used by The appellanT To gag The mouTh of The prosecuTrix was lying. He has also proved The seizure of cloTh fromjhe place of occurrence on 22.12.1986 vide Ex.Pi4. The reporT of F.5.L. also esTablished The facT ThaT The peTTicoaT and saaree of The prosecuTrix which were seized immediaTely afTer The FIR. was lodged, had sTains i4 of semen and humcm sperma‘mzoa. Dr. 5.C. Shrivasfava P.W.5, who examined fhe appeilanf on 23.12.1986, also did no? find any smegma on The penis oa‘ fire appeilan? which was sugges‘i'ive of racenf infercaurse by fha apgellcmt 8‘ If is ‘h‘ue ‘rha‘i' Dr. K15. Shobha Ramanna P.W.1 did no‘i find any exier‘nal injury or any injury on 'Hqe privafe par'l's of The prosacufrix, yei‘ This by if$alf is no? sufficieni’ To discard fhe fesiimony of The prosecu'rrix which is na‘l'urai and inspires confidence and is no'i only corrobomied by fhe F.I.R. Ex‘Piii and fhe fesi'imony of Boonduram P.W.3, Doshm'ih P.W.12 and Jagdish P.W.4 bu? aiso by 1‘he repor'f of ESL. IT is aiso To be borne in mind ihai fhe prosecuirix is a giri of fender age of 13 years and fhe perpe'rmfor of fhe crime was an abie- bodied yodng man who was defermined 10 sa‘i’isfy his lusf and had gagged ihe mou‘t’h of The prosecufrix and affer over powering her had commified rape on her. Therefore, fhe presence of injuries on fhe prosecuirix was no‘r a necessary coroiiary of fhe rape commiifed by ihe appeiianf. 9. In Sfafe of MP. V. Daya/ 5a/1u 2005 A.I.R. SCW 4839 fhe Apex Cour? wen? io the exfen’r of saying fhaf even ihe non- examinafion of The doc-tor and non-produciion of doctor‘s reporf wouid aiso no'i be fafai fo the prosecufion case if ihe sfa‘femen‘i of ihe prosecufrix inspires confidence and is accep'red by 1he Cour? as such and fhe fesfimony of ofher prosecufion wiinesses inspire confidence. If was held fhai’ corroboration of fesi’imony of fhe prosecu-i'rix as a condifion for judicial reiiance is a nof a requiremen'f of law buf a guidance of prudence. Under fhe given fads and circumstances, I have no‘hesifa‘iion in hoiding Thai” mere absence of injaries on 'i'he prosecufrix eifher on her person or on her priva'ie parfs does no'r render her fesfimony unworfhy of credif. s/J 3x $\ , %‘H” ‘\, fhe learned counsa! for 'rhe appellan'r Tha c§+a1ions ral§ed on by f credi? and‘is no? only fuHy eorrobomfed by fhe promp'r F.I.R. Ex.F.11 buf aha mom; af fhe wimesses Beandhumm P.W.3, Bashmfh P.W.1Z and Jagd§sh P.W.4 and neporf of F.5.L. ExPié‘ arz dearly disfinguishable since in 1+1is case “the *esfimony 0f fha prosecufrix is nafumL inspi res confidence and worfhy o cermbm‘afed by ‘t'he 1’e51’3 Having fhus considered 'i‘he evidence ied by ihe prooecufion in i‘i's enfire’ry, 1 am of ‘i'he considered opinion The? fhe convic‘iion of fhe oppeilani under Secfion Thereunder by The learn call for any in‘l'erference‘ 376 I.P.C‘ and 'rhe sentence awarded ed iriol Judge is well founded and does nol peal being devoid of meri‘l is dismissed. M ‘ l l l l In fhe‘ result 'l’he op Dilig‘Raosaheb Deshmukh