311w m mm m Wm1§wm $a117‘vmemé2r bE HQM’BLE SHE} Di‘iiREV ARE’ELLAFJ l‘ vs §E3i7§ii3EN7T m £01! II‘J X1 1m % gig—2667 7 K11.‘Sunita Jain, Ailvgcaf Slut; Macihunisha Smgh, g. ‘ T1 1S 3:11'mina1 appeal i cib'nviciion and ordmiof Sefutf 1’?4f'7004 WhErebV i€am€d ‘36 Has conmdeu me ammuant Sentencea 111m to 11116161 g0 K i g . , 3 Las€ 01 the plosecu uon SL613 daugntm‘ 01 the app€ua11t banu at T‘maoe Petra F W 2r iiiisbaiki Buc‘ihami ionw bagk ma\r«1a0€ Wim appeuani bhan msxciing with her matenlal g1 Starmd 1‘6Sidi11g'wit'h the appi V U11 L 1 Wimn Shri Mallohariai ‘35 Vsaz‘s, P10 ; . , Kumhari palm, 11kar Sahu, Sio akin agsd about eminagar bssidé 1<tf B111 g (pf-3r) tam of Chilattisaarh fluough Poiice ho‘xlrv knmha‘l‘u n1qff Pa‘i‘nn1 (F‘FW \" “I \""‘I 6 for tim app€11a11t Pails}. Lax—\jrér for 111E. Sfata a ciireci€d agahmt the judgment of nee datec‘: 27—8—2004 passed in 5T “Ollfi AiidlUOEal 5€Sb1011$ dudgE Ding ulldEL 811a bECHOH, Q/b OI Ii’i; 101‘ '7 ytiérs. 111 brief is that $16 pmSecutrix isE the S116 1*Esic‘ied Withhmifafjmr Budhani Sukhama was tiesertgdby 1161‘ {01mm and since than she contracieci éeeand «.ar Sahu. The prosecut-n’x was emiier and-mother and after her tieath, she iiamt 5-6 monthS 'priorof the. c‘iate of incii‘iem dUU Sukhma had gone to work, h‘ return of her mother, the proe ecutn'x narrated about the hicic‘ient to - n ,7 A She W513 aion'e in her house as PW. ' rstep-fathef forcibly rapeti her. On LA a XI-HC-22 The 5-6 (3.. O11 The other hant‘i, kanlai Com13€1 for the Stats has supporta‘i this imgugnaii jud g1 nmit. '7. _ i haw heard iéanmc‘i cm msei for {m partiéS. 1 have p€rused €116 avic‘ienca‘ availabia on racogi a‘s W61} as i116 mpugnmi judgmani. . r 8 Ccnviction of rim appai‘i'mi. i$ baSec‘i ml {rm Staiaman of PW. i ‘5 f pmsscumx 516}; daughwr 01 mi appgiiiemt ani‘i PW. " bughma, v € V01 um agpeualri. and mommy 01 th€ pr0$xécunix :9. ”5 r F “I l _ Ul€ ‘31056plit1‘i2s llaS ' STat€fi _ 111 . ilEI 4 Cl€DOSiHOl1 . . . tilat . . $i1€ . iappsliajxi 1s ner Step-mule; 311 theiiaw of incifiem a‘i 4,139 pm, She wan $0116 ‘m i116 home amd was shaping. The accused came anti Exorcn)“, 1913a. her 5% raised alarm howavm‘, no one Vasprooent in #16 né’lgimournooa Aiter kidna 0111 her clothes. tho appe‘iialn {mouotod on 11m anti on ie‘mn oi momor Sim nariateu my: moms,-1}? ikO D€3‘ IhSy RX€111 TO iOCiUE U16 IEUOI’i axiér HHOI‘mlng £1301“ i116 moniom To others. in the cro£ s—oxaminaiion, S116 has afateti tna‘n 3116. Chas no friend in tho vicinity. Her three. bombers also rosifiod 111 {no houSa. Ear mother doas fomvagtio work in other§ houses. TE. .Vampeua 161 her moihar am froquomiy ongageii m quayroi oli‘somo metexT or me o’mor lhe appviiant avoidsd talking toher. in para 8, ono has mated maL 11; 13 moonoot to say that the accuseé came, Siam. beaicio 116.1“ out of miSiako. However, she has admittei‘i this faci that. when the aoeuset‘t came to her, she was asieep. On the {gate of incident, her mothers had.’go:1e to may anti when she shouted, since v ’ A ._ ._.n ‘ / a. i 1 1 F uooy was; er 111 te Vcm'w, israfore, no 0116 cama IT is Jncen‘ect to Say That $116 was in fact waving with the appeiiajlt. S116 haS denied 1116 Suggestion that ‘sha is 1utor€€i by her mothar. i8. RW. ’2 Sukhma,‘ mother of the prosacutrix has aiso corroborated the stafemgm of The prosecutrix. She has-Siamd that ‘Whan she mturneii to har ht me. 011 the data of h1bic1€11t at 5.00 p.111. ”The. 11rosecu‘irix 101d 11m” {mark {118. accusa‘i rapgd her, Whgmupon 511a ’WEnt IO mugs report; , 3 .11. 1H C: Dr. E Dal1i haS examinec‘i th€ prosecutrix and haS $116 cuci not notice any injury over 1:116 :peraon of the. proscCu‘trix. Thcrc waa no injuiy on her private 31311. ' Her vacina admitied ‘Wo fi e173 eaSily Vagmai slides were premixed , ‘ano given Lo con‘atable 111 t1e (noes exammatlon, S116 nae admmeci maL the plosecutnx “as natmuated to sexual ultercouree anu that itHEiIE TWES 110 €Xt€1ilai 01‘ lt€111al injury OV€r .1116 DEFSOD OI T116 i prosecunix 12. ‘1111S 1s an uniormn incident Where the step—ciaughter and at vwne 01 the appeiiant have ade hei11ous a‘liegations of rape by fine \ 1 appellant. agamer. Her siep—c ighter. E11 the cross—examination of the. prosecutrix, defence has 1101 been abie 10 eiieit anything which makes her version untrustworthy - unreh‘a‘bie. O11 the contrary, there are , suggestions given by the. def 11ce. that the appei‘tant reached and siept u beside ner out of mistake and that both of them were in fact playing. r \ ’ :staioa Thai 011 examinaiion, bci thi h ii h n .1 l ‘i L d T116 manner in which the. pmsmutrix has bean CIOSS-axamilmii, 1'11 tact, givas credence to rim silk gations of th€ prosecuin‘x. T116 varsion oi the prosecutmi i3 duiy con‘obora'teC‘i from 111a statemént of Sukhma (RW. 2) who is the Wif€ of Th6 appEl‘iant anfi they? Ware 1ivii1g togsther 51$ husbmii‘i and wife for 12$; i‘O years. Th6 dafence has not béen abls to bring any evidence. Ei‘ihar C11 the farm of Cl‘OSs-examinaiion of 1113 ywimeSs or by ieadmg aviriencE in dofonce that the miation boiweon tile a-ppei‘taiit 21116: his Wife was so sti‘ajnec‘t that she faiselv impiieated ‘/U:e appeliant with the heip )fher own tiaughter by makmg fake ilajiegatmn ofkrape againsi him So far aS argument thai verSion of the - prosecutnx is not comiborated by meciicai evidence is concerned, it is not the caSe of fue prosecutiix or her mother that in the instant ,111e1deni, ehe sustained any h’iiln'y and, Therefore absence of injuriea mver the peraon of the prosec Jinx cannot he considered against the prosecution case to disbelieve {he ahegarions of rape. made by her in her deposition, particniariy wi‘ e11 her deposition inspires coniic‘ience‘ 13‘ in the light of the above discussion, conviction of the appellant recorded by the. tried Court is based on proper appreciation of .exgdence aVaiiahie on record. '14‘ in the resu‘it, the appear being devoid of substance deserves to r \ \ be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. ' I / / Sdl- “A mSHBA Judge [HieW /