HIGH CQURT (3F CHHATTI$GARH AT BELA$PUR Crimina! Apgaa5 Max 93I29Q8 APPELLANT Udavbhan Singh Sic Buddhiman Singh, (in Cusmdy} aged abaut 35 yeays, Cccupatiori-Driver, R/o Viiiage Barbaspur. Poiice Station- Ramanujnagar, Tahs'E-Surajpar, D§st¥§c€~ Swguja, (1G. Versus The $tate cf Chhatti$garhi through. PS. Khadgasn, Disti'ici Kcriya (C.G.) RE$PONDENT Present: Shri Ravish Vanna, Advacate for thg appeimnt 6L“: n- I, ' a o. m rannaj chrivastava, F! rane. l iawyer far the State. Singlg Bench: Henible ML TP, sharma1 J, JHDGMENT {Passed on 5t“ cf August, 2008) Thi$ appea! is directed again$t the judgment of aonviction & order 0f sentence dated 14312720075 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manindragarh En Seeeiene Trial Ne3Q57/04 whereby and whereunder !earned Additione! Sesséone Judge after haiding the appellaht guilty for commiesian of Offence punishame under Sectiene 450 and 3m Gf the lndian Penal Code, eentenced him ta undefgo Rel: for ten yeare and to gay a fine of Re,500!- and Rel: for ten yeere & to pay a fine of R5, 5QQ!-, in defaulf of payment of fine, to further undergo Ri fa! 5 months, on. each count, 2, Thie ie a. jail epeeale Judgment of cenviction is challenged on the ground €hat Without any acceptable evidence available on record, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned: 3, I have heard Shri Ravieh Verma, oounsel for the appellant and Shri Pankej Shrivaetava Panel lawyer for the State and perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial court. 4i Case of the prosecution, in brief, ie that on 1052004 the complainant PW~1 Keweli Bait who was aged. about $0 years: was sleeping in her house at about, 1 om: at yiiiage dildat the appellant asked to the complainant to open thetdoor: When. she open the door: she saw that aapellant wee standing before her house and being aeked, the appellant replied that; he came for drinking water and he entered in her house and piglet off the chimney. He olosed her mouth, feii down her in the r'loot and committed rape on her and when she started weeoing then he eaid that he wi§3 g%x1e money far trsatmentfAfterr sometime; he again committed rane on her and stay in her house: Victim wean: to the house of Hans Gond and informed the said incident Viilagers came to the house of victim at that time apoeliant wae sleeping in her courtyard: They caught hoid the apneliant: She lodged Dehati Nalashi (EX,P15) Regietered FIR wae written as EXP/5 A, Victim was examined by Dre Neelam Tirki (PW-11) who noticed ewelling over the rig.t mandible oomolaint pain on her neck; shouiders and ,orivete part: Vaginal smear elide were nrepared and sent fer ohemica! examination, Report is EXP/6 A. One cloth was seized from the oompiainent vide EXP/7,. Undergarment of the appellant was seized vide EXP” The appellant was examined vide Fxs P/2 and P12 “A" by Dr. Sager Kashyap and found eome ecratehes over his figures of the ieft knee videExiP/Z” Spat mag. was prepared. vide EXP/10, 5‘ Afier eompletion of inveetigetion, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Ciass, Manindragarh who in turn committed fhe case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Surguia at Ambikapur from where Additional Sessions Judge Manindragarh received the same on transfer for trial. 6r ln order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the aoousedl appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrlPlQ” in which he denied the material appearing against him, He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. 71 Learned, Additional Sessions Judge after hearing counsel for the respective parties, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned, 8: l have heard Shri Ravish Verma} counsel for the appellant and Shri Pankai ,Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for the State/respondent; 9‘ ln order to appreciate the contentions of learned counsel appearing for the partiesi l have examined the evidence available on record, In the present case, the prosecution is required to establish necessary ingredients of commission of rape The complainant is aged about 80 years. ln case of rape of a woman who is aged about 8Q years, the prosecution is required to establish that sexual intercourse is committed on her and that too without her will and consent. PW-1 Kewali Bai/Complainant has stated that she was in her house on the date of incident. at. about 1 am. night appellant came to her house and asked her Water She said how he demanding water at late night then appellant requested to open the door, When she open the door and provide water to himi he put off the chimney. She toid to the appellant to go to his housei but instead of going to his house appellant make $leep in her bed, Compiainant was compened to $leep on. the floor. While she was sleeping on the floor over eome cloth; appellant closed her mouth and committed intercourse against her will and consent and after sometime, he again committed interoourse with her: As a result of pressing her body she feels pain over the body especially over wrest beck. The appellant came out from room and tried to sleep in the courtyard. The oompleinant went to the house of her brother namely, $antosh and told him the said incident: Her slothes were stand with a spurn, Santosh and other persons same to her house where the appellant was sleeping, He was caught raid handed She lodged FlRv She was examined by Dr: Neeiama Tirki (PW-11) who has stated that victim came to her, She was not in a position to walk and she came with the help of two persons, She complaint pain in her jerk, neck, shoulders and private part, PW—Z Fool singh, PW-3 Bhaiya La! and PW-4 Santosh have stated that they were informed by the complainant that the anpellant entered in her house and committed rape with her, They caught raid handed the appellant while he was sleeping in the courtyard of the complainant and reported the matter to the police station-Khadganwa, Thereafter, polioe came and arrested the appellant, The defence has cross-examined the complainant at length, but defence has not been able to elicit anything in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony, She is 80 years old woman and even not in a position to walk, There is no anv cause to implicate the appellant falsely: Her statement does not require any corroboration, but in the present case her statement has been corroborated in material point by PW-Z Fool $ingh, PW-3 Bhaiya Lat and PW-4 Santosh, Her statement inspire oonfrdence and trustworthy suffrcient for drawing inference that the appellant after committing house tress-pass committed intercourse with her, without her will and consent. 1.0, After appreciating the evidence availahte on record, the learned trial court has held guilty of the appellant for commission of offence punishable under sections 376 and 450 of the lndian Penal Code.‘l do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial court. 11. As regards the question of sentence is concerned, the appellagt has committed rape with victim who is aged about $0 years. This state of affairs is shocking to the humanity, Learned Additional $essions Judge has sentenced the appellant rigorous imprisonment for 1Q years and tine of Rs, 5OOI~ on each count, The appellant is not entitled for any sympathy or concession. 12. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed andt , 2 Sdl- T. P. Sharma Judge r it is hereby dismissed, f