“XI—HC—78 WW,W,W @ WWW am mam mWm&¥1 mm ,f§€?m V " CRIMI APPELLANT Vs ‘, RESFONDENT AL APPEAL 110.569 i 2004 Karru @ Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar Yadav, aged 32 years, S10. Chaim Yadav, RfU. Chucharangapar RS. Simaga, Distt. Raipur. State. of Chhattisgarh through RS. Simaga, Distt, Raipur C.G. Present: Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwe Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. A. . out Dhirendra Mishra, J Thls appeal ls t ii, Advocate for the appellant. G. for the respondeni—State. A L J u D G M E N T (30th May, goon inected abamst the Judgment dated 18th March 2004 paesed €)y Earned 2rd Addltlonal Sessmns Judge Baloda Bazar m S.T. Sessions Judge after commission of oEence sentenced him to unde Rs.5,000/ -, in defaultgof payment of fine to further undergo RI. for six months and RI for six months respectively. Both..the sentences are dlrected fto 11m concurrently ecntlon, in brief 1s that on 11 08 2003 at about 11.00 a.m., the plosect‘ltnx had gone to work 1n hel field, ing h‘om there at about 1.00 11:11., accused/appellant K Tu @ Ram Kumar @ Raj Eumar Yadav l No.333/ 2003 whereby learned Adchtlonal holding accused] appellant guilty for under Sections 376 {1) 8r, 323 of the IPC, rgo RI. for seven years and to pay a fine of Wm W 290 mam (W) Case of the piosd when she was retu l Wm WET a1 200 mam-m (W) mmm ,2- caught her arid illrexxf her mm ,wW éqa‘mm no in a drain; ignoring her resietance assaulted her with hand arid iiet over her cheek and temporal mgion, teak out her c10th€s and committad. rape 0n her and th€reaft€r ran away. ‘ TL).e pmsaeutrix went t0 village Chuchungpur, narrated the‘incident to Bihari. son of Heera and l ‘ themai‘ter she returned hex: home, tmld abmlt the incident to her ‘ §0§1 8E. sig’cer Sonal‘in Bai and ledged the :‘e‘gart (Ex. P- 1)‘ Duriflg inveetigation spot map (vf Exfes was prepared. The i jgmaaecutrix ' was sent fm‘ medical examinatiml to 1 Community Health Centre, Smga Where Dr. Farzana 1G1311 (PREL— j 8) exammed her and gave he? repm‘t vide EKPJ?‘ Petticoat of the prosecutr'ui was takell in underwear of accused; appell: EX.P'12. Seized articles were Forensic Science Laboratory, Aftel completiztg inveoti Sectioils 3’?6(1), 323 Z35 506—15 Magistrate Fx‘rsst Class, Balod, case to the Court of Seesioneh Judge and the same was received an transfer by learned Additi § for trial. IPC wag framed againgt the aripeharit, who ahjured the guilt. ‘ ?aipur vide EXP— 15, hnai K Seggions Judge, Baloda Bazar Charge under Secltion§ 376.11), 323 and 506~B of the establish Charge against the apyellaht exarnined mile Winteeses. Thereafter statement 0f the accueedf appeilarit wae record d urider Section 313 of thegr.P.C. " An k The prosecution in 0rd r to to possessicn \Iide EXP-5. The mt was taken into poeseesion under eent for chemical. analysie to the gation, charge eheet was tiled under of the IPC in the Court of Jndioial a Bazar who in turn committed the z XI-HC—78 Wm W 200 WW (W) ‘WWW ‘am%1%¥im WWW§1§€IW %5a'§%m$'n%¥! WWW \_33, in which ha denied 'the circu mstanoeg appearmg agajilst him in ‘nhe proSecuticxn casf; and pie ied mnocence arid false implicatian {Tiue t0 enmity. Learneti trial Jourt after hearmg (201111861 for the 1‘1espective parties convicted a1 d Sentenoea the accusedf appellant as mentioned abeve. ‘ / Learned. couneel fer 0 v r he appeliant submits that the 3ir3s‘ecutrix ie a 62 years 01d 111311 and the allegation i3 that 1'11 the rainy eeaeen she was sub eeted t0 rape hy the appellant Wha iii; aged 3'2 yeare, 1'11 the ld which is highly improbable ‘Proseoutrix and other Witn sses that are examined by the proeecutim’i me related t0 eac 1 ether and the appellant hag been implicated. in the ease due t0 imoeity. He further submits that the appellant is a hear bay; a'ai't from sentencing the appellaht‘ to undergo RI for seven ye ‘3, learned trial Court has also iniposed a. hne of Rs. 590033 On the ether hand lean ed counsel. for the State supports the impugned jutigment. isel for the respective partiea. To establish the charge, gthe prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as E’.W.~ 1 , son of the proseeutrix Santosh Kurnar Sen as RWxQ, sister of the prolaeoutrEx Sonarin Bai as REL-4, Bhagwat PERL—6 82. lady doctégr Farzana Khan as P,W.~8 who ich is too excessive. I have heard learned eon examined the proseeutrix after E 1e incident. .A‘ The proseoutrix has stated in her deposition that the incident is of Monday i.e. one day before Rakhee festival. She had e i h XI-HC—78 EW,W,W WW W 2&0 amim (W) \ the appellant had made $65€1a1 'mta‘cnurse with ths pwsecutrix but ‘ this Witness cnrmborate3 the statenmnt of prasecutrix i11 igaterial particulars. Th€ StiRmfmt of prosecutrix is further Enrrabm‘ated by the statem ent 0f P‘Wr8 lady doctm' Whe has examined a e the prosecutrix aml etated that ml examinatirjn she has l feund abrasimn an her right iaajm 011 her face, sheulders hhe had founck reddiglmess jcamplaim‘ng of paih 1'11 her pr'L P.W.—2 Sahtoeh Kumax mated that after returning l cheek ahd 3he was oomplaining of and back. On internal examination over her private yart. She was also vate part Sen 8e P.W‘—4 Sonai‘in Bai have also iome the tn‘osecutrix had informed. 1that appellant had forcibly raped her in the fleld after heating her 3nd she had sustained abra31 it ement of above Witnesses eStablished beyond teasonable doubt that the appellant had cammitted forcible sexual. int t 'ial Court had not committed arty illegality or inlirmity in holding Xthe aooueed} appellant guilty under Section. 376 (1} 0f the I??C. Thus tram the stat an ever‘her cheek. date 0f incident ahd the t1; ercouree with the pros eeutrix on the IS Now coming to the ’queistion of sentence, the appellant has, been sentenced to undergci RI fog seven yearS, which i5 a millimum sentence preecrib id under Section 376 (1} of the IPC, and to pay a title of RS.5,00 f -, 1’11 default of payment of hne to Xi-HC—78 3aW, Wen-e,W (L5 W m W 200 anew m (we) wwww 1m anteW mmmm“? ‘a' feelm m em anew —S.— in the house of Ka‘ftu. Howwer, this witnees has been declared that y XLHC—78 I ‘ i mW,WW WW vi 200 Wvm (13W) mmm ammm $ x Wmm' Mia$1m wm mamm' ~G4_ furthai‘ undergo RI fm‘ six m 011ths and Similarly, under Section 323 0f the IPC, the appellant hag b€en agentenmd t0 undm‘ga Six :mcntha RL which is 3130 just and proper. §\part from the, 3ubstantive sentances, tha a 1 ‘ pellmlt has also been imposed with a perlalty 0f Rs.5,000[—. The éppellant has} yreferred this appeal lih‘IOugh legal aid as he w s not able t0 engage counsel f0: \ '4; 'f \ / l iyrrmeeu‘ting hi3 appeal. It is stated that the appellant ie a pocr lpersan a11d he is net capa. 1e 0f eayillg the line ameunt aml lthex‘efm‘e impasitiml of mle of Rs.5,000f' may be reastmably ;1‘educed. ‘ Considering the ‘linal cial status 0f the appellant arid 1 lfurther censidermg that the appeal has been preferred by the appellant threugh legal aid, t 1e axgument aflpearss to be just and: proper. In the result, the juclg ent of canvietian (1f the appellant under Sectiuna 376 (ll an . 23 of the IPC and jail. eentences imposed on him is maintain cl, However, the impositien 0f line amount undeT Section 376 (1 of IPC ie reduced, Fine of Re.500f — is imposed and in default of payment of line ameunt, th 477/ ,\‘ appellant has to undergo RI. gfor ene mnntlt Swéb msw \ Judge