...^-^1^. HICTi CQURT QF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINGLEBBNCH: HON'BLE SHRI R. L. JHANWAR. J. Crimiaal Appeal No. 6/1994 APPBLLANT Salik Ram Veysus RESPONDENT StateofM.P. (now C.G.) JUDGMENT PQSTLOrtA5 NPVEMBER, 2009 '-:\ • Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge l^ /II/2009 •""% (9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: HOH'BLE SHKI RAJBSHWAR LAL JHANWAR. J. APPELLANT Accused RESPONDBNT Criminal Appeal No. 6/1994 SaHk Ram, aged about 21 years, son of Ram Ratan aiias Ramda Das, resident of viUage Barechha, PoMce Station Pathariya, District Bilaspur, M,R Versus State ofM.P. (now C.G.) AppealUZs 374121ofthe^r.P.C. Appearassce; Shri Arun Kochar, counsel for fhe appeUant. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT (DeUvered on t<| .11.2009) 1, This ciimin.al appeal is directed agaiast tiie judgaient of coiivictiou and order of seatence dated 21st Deceniber, 1993 passed m. S.T, No.415/92, whereby fhe learaed 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur liak Court- MungeH has convicted fhe appellaat under Sections 450 & 376 of tiie IPC aad sentenced hioi to undergo RJ. for 5 years aad R.I. for 10 years respectively, 2. Prosecution story, m brief, is that on 13.8.1992 at about 2- 2:30 iii fhe noon, fhe prosecutrix was alone ia her ta-law's house as fhe otlier family inenibers had gone outside tiie vitlage. When she was sleepnig, fhe appellant entered tlie house, lifted her froin cot, took inside tiie roora aad put her on fhe ground and coniniitted rape with her. The app€Uan.t had gagged her inoutli so tliat she could not raise aay hue aad cxy. When fh.e appellaiit after coniniitti&g rape has fled froia there, she raised hue aad cry. After sorae tinie, when her hiisband aad m-laws retumed to house, she narrated tlie mcident to tliem.. She also narrated th.e nicident to one Man.u (P.W.7). On tlie uext day of tlie iiicident, fhe prosecutrix lodged fhe report, Ex, P-10. The io.vestigatiou took place. Necessaiy seizures were inade. Statenients under Section 161 Cr,P.C. were recorded. After conipletion of iavestigation, charge sheet was filed before th.e Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli. In due course, tlie case was coraiixitted to th.e Sessions Judge, BIlaspur. 3. The leaoied Sessions Judge made over the case to the 4-ih Additional Sessioas Judge, Bilaspur for trial. The leaoied Additional Sessions Judge has framed charge under Sections 450 and 376 of Uie IPC. Charges were read over aad were explahied to tiie appellant. The appeUaiit abjured flie guilt aad pleaded iojiocence aiid his defence was fhat he has been falsely impUcated ia the offeuce, 4, The leanied Additional Sessions Judge has, after evaluatiag the evidence available on record aad hearing the counsel for respective parties convicted fhe appellaat iinder Sections 450 aad 376 ofthe IPC and sentenced hioi as mentioned above. 5. Leamed couusel for the appeUaat subaiits fhat th.e prosecutrbc has wrongly implicated fhe appellaiit under tlie pressui'e of her husbaad aiid ia-laws, as there was previous aiimiosity bebveen family members of appellao.t aad prosecutrix, Her fatlier-ia-law had threatened to kUl her; therefore, the prosecutrix lodged the false report agamst the appeUaat She had also appHed for traasferrhig the case from MungeM to BUaspur, In flie niedical report of fhe prosecutrix, no isijur}r was found on her body. The prosecutidx was a couseutmg paity. 6. On tlie otlier hand, leamed counsel for fhe State lias supported tiie impugned judgment. 7. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for both fhe parties aad also perused fhe niaterial available on record, 8, It is evident from fhe statemLent of prosecutrix (P.W,9) fhat at the time of occurreace, she was alone io. her in-law?s house. The appellant entered tlie house and comraitted forcibly sexual nitercourse wifh her, Accordiag to her stateHient when she cried, one Man.nu came there, aad after sonie tixae, her fainily inenibers also caiae tliere and she narrated fhe iacident to them.. Thereafter, tiiey went to police station to lodge the FIR. Maanu (P.W.7) has stated th.at after heaiiag hue aad cry offhe prosecutrix when he went to the house of prosecutrix, he saw the appellaiit goiag out from the house of tlie prosecutiix. Sadheram (P.W.6), fatlier-ia-law ofthe prosecutiix also stated that at tlie time of racident fhe prosecutrbc was alone ia tlie house as he had gone outside fhe viUage. In his cross- exaoiiaation he stated fhat after gettiag io.foroiation about tticident he did not miinediately go to fhe poUce station as the poHce station is sitiiated at a distaace of 12-13 kin. froixi his viUage and at fhe relevac.t tmie, he had no conveyaiice to go to poUce station. In his cross-exainiaation he denied the suggestion that due to fheir previous aaimosity witli relative of tlie appeUaat, he pressurized the prosecutrix to lodge fhe false report. Thus, fhe facts aiid circunistances of fhe case and stateineuts of witaesses cleaiiy show that the prosecutrix was not a consentiiig party. 9. So fai' as the inedical evidence is coucemed, it is clear tih.at tlie prosecutrix was a manied woinan fherefore the argunient advanced by leanied counsel for fhe appeUaat tliat no iajuiy was found over flie person of the prosecutarix does not raatter. So far as the age of tiie prosecutoiix is concemed, accordiag to the report of Radiologist -Dr, C.S. Sharma (P,W.2) it appears that fhe age of tlie prosecutrix was about 17-18 years at the tmie of iiicident. Thus, it is established fliat on tlie date of iacideut, fhe prosecutrix was above 18 years. So far as delay iii lodgmg the FIR is conceraed, from perusal of fhe all evidence, it is clear that at fhe tiine of occurrence, fhe prosecutrix was alone ia the house aad as soon as her family niexabers retumed, she iinmediately lodged fhe report. The defence has not been able to eUcit aiiytlimg regai'ding delay io. lodgiiig the PIR. 10, Thus, from fhe above discussion, it is clear that fhe statement of the prosecutrix is tn.ista¥orthy. Her statenient was also supported by Mannu (P.W.7), Sadheram (P.W.6), her father in law aad FIR, Ex, P-10. I am oftlie view tliat tlie appellant had entered iaside tlie house of tiie prosecutrix wifh iatention to coiDLimt rape 011 her. 11, Froin tlie aforesaid discussions, it cao. be safely infeiTed fhat the appeUaat had coinixiitted fhe offence punishable under Sections 450 aad 376 of the IPC. The leamed trial Court has rightly convicted and seutenced the appeUaat as above aad there is no illegallty, io.firaiity or jurisdictioaal error conimitted by the Court below wan-aiituig iaterference iii the appeal by this Court, 12. In tlie result, fhe appeal being devoid of inerit is Uable to be disraissed aud is accordiagly disHiissed. R.L. Jhanwar Judge k»^.