u; Siam §§amh ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. #6? 2606 AP ELLAN: Rajkumar Shukla , , T S/o Onkar Prasad Shukla, Aged about 49 Years, R/o Vinage — Devbaloda, Thana — BhilaiaDistrict Durg (C.G) us w r ”fate of Chhattisgarh, Through Thana — Bhilai, District Durg (Cl./G.) v. RESPONDENT: <5? CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 2 OF THE CODE OF . W ) J ‘3VERs r HIEG§-i ”${§RT OF €HHATW$G£§RE€ K5 B LASPUR Jam. iii? Justrce Pr§ Imam? §i aka) (:riminag Appaai Ns.?$9 m‘ 2E$$ . AF’LPELLSANE" Rajkumar Shukia \Jagrsu$ R SP$N3EV¥ ‘ § E ; Sim s Praveen Shri Satyendra Da GavemmemAdvocaxe Sahu soumei fer *‘m foPh appeiiam atagmssoment‘ Siam m” Chhatéiwarh Ln: waE £t§3§3aaeE urc§er Sectaan 3%(2' of ma Saw of Cnmmai Pm amge aw’ Sagui¢ m ' a'i'§.2mg; v E is; appe 3 direc€ed againg‘i 'ihe imgwgrted ludgmeni‘ dated § .8C-2L08 pa$sec£ by Sessacm éudge! {Eurg n $gg3ims Triai NQJQQGSE sanwc‘iing the &ppe$ianitfaaczsed far {m affsame puhi$£11abEe um‘ier Section 378m cf ihe Esdian Panai Csécr: and sentensana him to ur‘dargu ngcsrcag imnnwonrwm €3: 1 G yeam and pay firm of Rs.1,QQOI—; in defauk 0f payment Q? fwe ”Ea €ur§her undéwgo {igGmus impliscnment fa? 6 manthg. 4 w 2. Case cf heprosecutma in brig? §s that FIR. (EXP-1) was icdged by the pro wm‘w ( \f\ ‘ n 3~1~t2i395 at abouif 5 PM. mat on 3-1“ 250$ ai amm 2:33 9M; whim sha was in the markei mar fhe scham, ihe appeHantIaccus’ed caught hoki 0f her, gagged her magiri with a pi se of deth, took her £0 hi$ muse amé "* the W $6 tn amauaniiaccmw ed ‘wr i a d afve1 removing her memes he “cmded ram: upor her. Am? tha somm§5$ian of rape, vf‘rcsecutv x (P W 1 saw Gut c'yghg and narraied +he ewwa imment ta .r. x Mean 3a! d\s’-2§amt area§€er€herepert wasxodged. 1 u u ......rr.. .3. fin order ta prove the guiii of {he appeEimiiaacused the prcsewtion has examined as many 33 Q Witnessaa. $itatam&r€: 0f the appeiEant/accused was aisc reccrdeé unéer E'Secéian W3 mP um ‘ He Jenieh' me charge igvei'ed aaamst him and meaded his Emace‘nce am! faEse EmpEiosgés (n thc aa$$ r ‘ bi‘er heaz’mg 3eamed counsai far the pamaS, ihe trial Saar? sawiaiad and genéanced the gppeiiantlaccused a3 memianed abave. $ ‘~ Hehce ihis‘appgai, v $3 5. i #Heard laar§§d coun$el far the gariies and verused the matmai avaiiab§e on receré incmde tiw mug ”mpugned) 5.7 Lcamed uomael far the arzpc am’avcuger <yuJm%$ :ha 2h T)( appeétant/accused Ems been fgisely impgica‘ed §n tha gage hen-awe there was same enmity beiwem the aweiianyxausaci gnd the fam§£y ‘ “1e pmsecmm He fwhw’ qubmvts that as ::e« thie ‘jio‘remm; m E‘r P.Balki$hore {PAN—7); {ape ha$ net bgen csmmitted and the sEat‘agmem of the prosecutrix (P.\f\!.—1) is whoiry umreéiabEe. 7. On the other ham! ieamecf coumei for the $tate/respendent euppor‘s ‘he Impugned tudgment and submifs that a m'mr gm has been rawshed and there is encugh evidence on recarci t0 jeeufy the ecmtiotéon of the appekiantfecoused. % 53 8.' in support ef Ets case the preeecutien has examined the erosecumx {P.W.-1), Meenabai {P‘WQ} who is the sister-in-§aw ef the presecutfix,Maekibei (9W33) an independefa‘t witness whe saw the preeecutrix eeming out frem the heuse ef the appeiientleeeueed crying; xsé ' Dr. ’Mahtusha Umredker (PAM—4) e tedy eeeter who examined the prosQacutrix Sukhchand {P W —5} father Gf the presecutrix, AShwanE Kumar Verma (PW 6; Paiwa Dr P Batkmnore (PW /) whe had de: e medicaE examinatton of me appaéiant/accu<:ed pr AKHanu (P W 8) medscai offmnr Mo gave the repcrt EX P—4 regar’img age 0. ‘he pr0$ecutnx ar‘d J P Kaihaie (P W »9\ mveaugatmg omcer 9. From we statement ef me p?osecutrix (P W xi) “t is apparent that 0r thgf‘ gate 0f mmdent when the pmeecugnx wasWetumma Home after psay ncs‘ wWh her frien'is m *he mama near *hr schoc! the apoeHaWaccueedMho was stam ng there caug‘ ‘t hem of her and reek he? te hrs nearby muse, eaeeed her moutl" and after rememg her domee', he removed his cloéhes and then eo‘mmiited the effenee ef ra‘oe it is stated by the proeeCutrtx that White eemmttttng the effence 0f rape h r iegs were ted we”: +he neip e; a {ope a": her meuth was gagged wfth the hem of a piece ef doth. The presecuirix has fueher stated that after the merdew when she came out fmm I e heuee of *he appeulantiaceueed, she narrated the emre mordeni te Meeneber {PAN-2) who is her sis‘ier-in-iaw am thereafter the report (EXHRE) was lodged. The statement of the prosecutrix (P;W.-t) has been duty supported by Meenabai (P.W.—2}. Manktbai (Rwy-3} has stated that she saw the vitiagers beating the appetient/accused and the preeec’utrix was cry’mg.‘ Upon enquiry, she was infermed by the e proeeeutrix that the appeiiant/accused has cemmtttec} rape upon her. 1n respect of the feise impiicetton‘ cf the eppetianveceused tr; the case, the prosecutrix has categoricalty denied that there was any enmity betweeh hetrfarr’iiiyiand the appetiantiaccueedf’ ,1D.s Dre Meniueha Umredk’ar {P.W.-4) who heci examined the progecjutrix (P.W.~1) has categoricany stated that hymen of ihe progedutrEx wa‘s ruptured. } She hezd prepareci two vagina} siides of the prdSec‘utrix and sent far chemicai examinaiimn. She had also advised farix-réy of mng bones of ihe prosecutrix f0? her age canfi¥ma£ian Sr. i further smted mat there was emdeme 0? recent 39mm} nmemoume am h thp prasecnfrlx Sukhcham ’PW 5i who ks the tamer of Yhe arosgrgumx‘nas caLegoncal v afated fhat the aae of fhe mrcsec' trcx wa¢ about t2 years Dr A K Sehu (P W 8i who had done the ossmoeiion test 0f the prosecutnx has opmed *hat or t“\e csa€e G§ aiieond offance the age of Lhe prosecutnx was about i5 yeere and hxs report ts EX‘PA. The apcekiamfaccused was also examiner} by Dr, P.Ba£kishme (P.W.— 7)‘ who has stated that the aopeiientieoooeed wee oepa‘oie or performing sexual interoouree end his {epozf is EXP-1 1. in respect of the age of the prosecutrix, the Envestigating bfficer J.P.Kathz3te (P‘W.-9) haa; seized ExP—W the birth certificate Gf the prosecutrtx showthg her date at birth t0 be 19—4-1992, according t0 which on the eate a? commission of the offence her age comes to about t4 year's. 11A From the evidence adduced by the oroeeoutioh it is croite ciear hat the prosecut‘rix was eubjected to rape by the epoeilent/acoueedi ’i'he arguments advanoed by ieamed counsel for the aopeiiant/eocosed have no substance. i have gone through the meteriai eveiiahie oo‘ record i .rnd no iiiegaiity in the impugned judgment ”we i i Meiojueha Umredkar (P.W.-4) has given the report EXP-7. $he has 7 12 : Theeppeei faiie and is accordingiy dieogiseed. ‘ Pr tmker Sd/ Diwa" er r Judge J,,