HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH, BVLASPVfi Criminal Apoeal No. 118 of 2003 Kiritram Vs. State ofChhattisgarh JUDGMBBTT , .,-v^'' N;,&^'' ^^o? ^ BS"-*38JSgt&r Postfon 11.06.2007 Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge 'Msss^SS. fesKsM.K^s^ f"?"'"" ^-""SW^aiS^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Criminal Aooeal No. 118 of 2003 APPELLAWT RESPOMDENT Kiritram S/o Mahasingh Gond, aged 40 years, R/o vfflage Padadah, P.S. Kasdol, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Versus State ofChhattisgarh through P.S. Kasdol, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) (ApBeal under Section 374 (21 of&.P.C.l Aflpearaace: Shri Ratindra Mishra, coiuisel for the appellant Shri Ashish Shiikla, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent. JUDGMBNT (11.06.2007) SUML KUMAR 8INHA. J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judginent of conviction and order of sentences dated 31.10.2002 passed m Sessions Trial No. 222/2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Baazar, District- Raipur, by which the appeUant has been convicted under Sections 376 (1) & 306 LP.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 yeai^ aud to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/- & R.I. for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. l,000/-, in defaiilt of payinent offine amounts to further undergo R.I for one-one year in each count, respectively, with a further direction to i-un fhe sentences concurrenfty. 2. The brief facts are fhat (he deceased-Sahetaan Bai, aged \ about 15 years, was the daughter ofthe appeBant fiom the wed- Idck ofappcUaut and Ganga Bai (P.W.-2), who was married with Cr.A.No. 118 of2003 •L the appcUant uuder Chttdi custoia, 18-19 years prior to the date of incideut. The uicident took place on 9.4.2002, when tfae deceased comnutted suicide by putting herself on fire after pouring keroseue ofl ou the body. The case ofthe prosecution is fhat 4 months prior to the date of incident, deceased-Sahetrin Bai had toU her mother that the mofher should caB the elder persons of the vUlage before whom she waated to disclose soine facts. On fhis, on a particular day, Ganga Bai caBed the viUage Patel etc. before whom the deceased narrated that she wffll not live iu her house as her father conmuts bad thiags with her. On this, fhe vfflagers had advised and they had cautioned the appeUant not to do such things, on which, fhe appeBant said that the daughter does uot recognize him as fafher and after departure of the Panchas, he started quarreling with fhe deceased aud he had also beaten her. The fiuther case of the prpsecution is that due to sexual intercourse committed by ffae father, fhe girl becaine pregnaat aad nltunately she cominitted suicide on 9.4.2002. The xaatter was reported to the poUce aud a laerg intimation (Ex.-P/1) was recoixled. Inquest, Ex.-P/4 was prepared, ttie body was sent for postDaortem and the postaiorteiu report (Bx.-P/6) was received. Based on merg intimation aud further mvcstigation, ftie F.I.R. (Ex.P/11) was recorded and ater completion ofusual investigation, fhe charge- sheet was filed. 3. The appcBant was chai^ed wifh Sections 376 (1) & 306 I.P.C. to which he denied. f' Cr.A. No. 118 of2003 BtKi-?a=«!*SasS'3s^ ^;.^^.^--- — • ...^- 4. The Sessions Coiirt recorded a findiag that fhe girl was aged about 15 years and she was subjected to forceful sexual iatercourse by father due to which, she became pregnant and ulttinately, on the abetment, she conunitted suicide on 9.4.2002. S. Learaed counsel for the appeUant has not disputed the age, suicidal deafh and relationship between the parties. He argued fhat on the basis of material available on record, the ofifences u/ss 376 (1) & 306 I.P.C. would not be made out and the appellant is eutitled for acqtuttal. S. On the other haad, learued counsel for the State opposed these ai^uments and supported the judginent of conviction and order of sentences passed by the Sessions Court. 7. I have heard the leamed counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. 8. Ganga Bai (P.W.-2) has deposcd that whea her daughter was not goiag to work, she asked her, on which the daughter said that she should call the vfflage peopfc, on which, the viUage people were catled and the daughter narrated before thein fhat her father wants to keep her as his wife and ia the n%ht, he treats her as a wife, m.eaaing fhereby, he plays with her inodesly. The viBage people had advised aud cautioned her husband saying that if he does not leave all this, he wiU not be able to live iu fhe society. She has also deposed fhat she herself had seen fhe appeUant t^ing to catch haads and arms etc. of the daughter. Cr.A.No, USof2003 h-^!sSSf9as 9. Chamralal (P.W.-3) is viB^^ Patel. He has deposed vxle paia-2 that 4 months prior to the date of incaleat, fhe girl had called a vfflage Pandwufat and had openly narrated the story in the Parwhayat that her father commits rapc against her, on this, sonie advise -was given to the appeBant 10. There is no infirmily in such evidence given by these two witnesscSjas in lengthy cioss-examination, the defence has not been able to bring ou recori aay su.ch material, on which, their such evideuce may be drabelieved. 11. Dr, Yogesh Kiunar Shanna (P.W.-4) had conducted fhe autopsy on the body of the deceased. According to autopsy icport (Ex.-P/6), fhe deceased was aged about 15 years and sbe had received 100% bum injuries. The cause of death was shock duc to bum injiiries and it was suicidal in nature. He has also found that a fetus of about 7 %> inonfhs has expelled through vagina along with the placenta. The hairs and nails of the fetus were weU developed aad the placenta has not detached from the 12. The Sessions Court recorded a finduig that adiaittedfy, the deceased was pregnaat at fhe time of incalent as the fetus expeUed froia the vagina was attached with the body aad fhe duration of the fetus was of about 7 % monfhs as stated by Dr. Yogesh Kumar Shanna (P.W.-4) and on the characteristics ofthe fetus, a presuinption was drawn that the iD.tercourse inust have been coimmtted against the deceased in fhe uioath of August \ Cr.AJVo^lS uf2003 ^ ilA 2001, It also recorded that at the relevant tirne, the girl had disclosed the factum of conunissiou ofsexual intercoiirse to her inother and also to the Panchas in the village Panchayal. She has clearly stated that she was subjected to forcible sexual iutercourse by her fafher. The Sessions Coiut took the view that there was no reason wifh tfae girl to make fedse allegations agauist her father. It has also taken the view fhat in the normal circumstance, no daughter will inake aUegatwns of a crime like rape against her father aad she wiU not dare to xuake false aUegations to her mother aud also ia the vfflage Pancfiayat where inany respectable persons of the society are present. 13. It is a fact of cominon prudence ttiat such kiad of aUegations are exception ia our society. NonnaUy, nobody inakes such allegations agaiast her own father, that too disclosiug it to the mother and also saying the inother to call the Panchayat and then furtfaer disclosing iu Pccnchayat also. There appeara to be uo reason also with fhe giri to niake such stateiuent. There is uo reaaon with the niother and Patel ete. to m.ake false stateinents in this regard as nofhing could be brought on record agaiast tlieir testiniony aud the stateiueat of the giri niade before thein would be relevant u/s 32 offhe Evidence Act as it was a verbal statenient ofa relevaat fact because it was as to the cause ofher death and it relates to circumstaace of traasaction with residted in her death. Such stateinent of fact is supported with the medical evidence to the extent that the deceased was canyiag Y pieguancy of 7 % inonfhs at the tune of her death. Therefore, in w Cr.A^No. U8of2003 -•6% KSSS- the facts aud circumstaaces of the case, the Sessions Court committed no en-or of law in holdiag the appcllant guilty of offence puiiishable u/s 376 (1) I.P.C. on the basis of such evidence adduced by fhe piosecution. 14. So far as the offence u/s 306 I.P.C. is coacemed, for fhe said ofifence, there must be evidence of instigation, co-operation or initial assistauice to the deceased to commit would be suicide. The punishiuent for abetment to siiicide can be awarded when abetinent as defiaed u/s 107 I.P.C. appears to be proved. Section 107 I.P.C. provides as uuder: "107. Abetmeat of a thiag.- A person abets the doingofa ttungwho- Ptra'(.-Instigates auy peraon to do that thiag; or Steoondh/.-Engages with one or morc ofher person or persons in any couspiracy for the doiag of that ttung, if an act or iltegal omission takes place in pursuauce of tliat conspiracy, and ia order to fhe doing of fhat ttung; or Thirdly.-iiitentionaQy aids, by any act or iUegal oinission, the doing ofthat fhing. Bxplanation l.-A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by wiUful cbnceahnent of a material fact which he is boiuid to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures or atteinpts to cause or procure, fhing to be done, is sald to inst^ate fhe doing of that thing. 15. In the present case, the victim had disclosed tlie story of comiaission of rape to her inother immediately wtien such act was conunitted by father. She had also requested to caU fhe Pcmchayat and a village Panchayat was called, in which, she disclosed about commission of rape by her fafher. At fhat tune, she was canying pregnancy of about 3 Va months. When it Cr.A.No, 118 of2003 ^^l's^S"^1^^^ ^MS^'^"-' 3!SSStfS!S» !s:3''" -If reached to fhe advance stage of 7 1/2 inonths, shc comnutted suicide by putting her ou fire after pouring kerosene oil on her. The circuinstance would show that Gxini the veiy firat day of coiuinission ofrape aad thereafler lioin the date ofits disclosure to the niother and also to fhe viBagers in vfflage Panchayat, the giri was under inental depression but she did not do any such act iiiuaediately because she was uot sure about the pregnancy aad ultunately, when advaace stage of pregnaacy caine i.e. 7 Va inonths, she found no way except to commit suicide. The act of the appeBaut ainounts to abetinent. AU these circiimstances constituted abetmeat for commission ofsuicide by giri, who was left with no way except to do this, for which, the appellant alone was responsible. In fhe opinion ofthis Court, the Sessioris Coiurt furfher coiuinitted no error of law by convicting the appellant u/s 306 I.P.C. also. 16. There appears to be no iUegality m. fhe judgment of conviction aud order of sentences passed by ftie Sessions Court warrauting iaterference by this Court. 17. The appeal has no inerit, the sam.e deserves to be disnussed aad is accordiugly disnussed. _ &^- Sd/- „.. ^s^ v'atti