(jm '3m9 age 35 I Years R/o ,Nay'apura Tah. and Distk. Burg. (Muii‘oy F i - T e atgxe or madhya Hales? $Jn £eSyondervt § /\Jvota-‘” “nu“ - 5‘?)Qr1xtx1rml agpe§}_ggg§§_§§g§§gg_~74L2l of tne Co e [yffjkyof Grim ml wooeaure. __—_—_—__-m Se 15 ta .cgs KY5 Ea :Po C. R I for I1; ears an§ fihe of 6000/-— ii I fol“ ’i year iii defau 1t. ggggggggg z- Ashok iiumar Sahu son of Baywam Eahu S. g wf‘hmmmg i}: Gii LO TL "‘ OT‘ ‘£A_)¢1IA. 11~A3£dxtl AT JmJnJJ AIA \ \ Bur g / gmg“? 5mm \ w gf i R ‘ y @i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA‘RH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 1994. APPELLANT ‘ Ashok Kumar Sahu. VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Sunil Sahu counsel for appellant. Shri Rajendra Tfipathi PL for respondent/State. ‘ u CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 12! OF THE CODE O CRIMINAL PROCEDURE * JUDGMENT “ (o1 .oz.2o1 0) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29 4 1994 passed by SeSSIons Judge Durg, In SesSIons Trial No 344/1993 conVIctIng the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 ofthe Indian Penal code and sentencmg him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and pay fine of Rs. 6000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. 1 Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 2.6.1993 FIR (EX. P-1) was lodged by theprosecutrix (PW-1) aged about 25 years alleging that on 22.5.1993 at about 9 a.m. when sheigad gone to the house of the accused, she was taken inside the room and subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by him. She has further alleged that on 27.5.1993 a Panchayat meeting was also called in which It accused/appellanthas deniedtheincident. J ; ~ 3 So as‘to’ hold thetagcused/appellant guilty, prosecution has 'V’exjamined 07 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 3130f the Code of" Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the cajse. Gg 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and isentenced the accused / appellant for the offence as mentioned Q _2‘ above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material iavailable on record including the judgment impugned. ;6. Counsel for the appellant submits that even the prosecutrix (PW-1) has not supported the version of her being subjected to rape ‘by the accused/appellant and therefore she has been declared i hostile. He submits that almost all the witness have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile and therefore, j thezconviction. recorded against the accused/appellant under Section - 376 IPC is not'in accordance with law. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports i the judgment impugned. j 8. From the record it is revealed that the prosecutrix (PW-1) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. She has categorically stated that the accused/appellant has not subjected her to rape and no report regarding the same was lodged by her. Mohanlal Sahu (PW—2) — the husband of the prosecutrix and Khirbar Ram Sahu (PW-3) the landlord of the prosecutrix have also not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. Indira Bai Sahu (WV-4) sister in law of the prosecutrix has not stated anything against the accused/appellant. Only the investigating officer namely Rama Koshta (PW-7) has supported the case of the prosecution and the conviction of the appellant is based on his testimony only. 9. Having perused-"the material available on record, this Court is " of the considered opinion, that the impugnedjudgment convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant under Section 376 IPC is s based on no evidence and accordingly the same is liable to be set aside. i i i H ‘i ‘ ._._'§__ 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. impugned judgment dated 29.4.1994 is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He be set free if not required in any other ca/se? _*