' mww i a "m CH}; Hmg swat}: ‘oF :vuwmtg mmwg w;- 3&E3&;9UR;I=;H g‘ ism. 47? GF amigo. - {'- AwEAL ; / J . ” ‘ } Loicmajua ml” cu Javaaa (mild, , ageé 2 “Jain, re51éen1. of I i ‘10i¢mL’qa,Distt Rawm'gx? .. ‘ PE'LLwT J/V VSw (1m Jam) V Z g ‘ TIE: 33: at: E? MAE. f / CWETEQ QPF‘LAL LWDun a? " $33 WW '/ / TEE Gil} INAL 1% 1 comm :ov _ ' iggrum 7 ' f 1. ; 1 » Th’s 376 Eb. _ I . .. R,I.£cm ? grews. E ;. HIGH COURT OF CWTTISGARH AT BILPSPUR. Crimina l é‘ppeal No¢479/1990. Loknath . . . Appel lant. gs a State o£ yladhya Pradesh. (Now Chhattisgarh). . . . Respondent. ******* Judgment (26 - o7- 2001) Homshri R.S.Garg, J. 3 The appellant being aggrieved, by the judgment dated by 23-4 13h; 1990, learned pas ist ed .m :AoS’J” Sessions Mahasamund, trial No. 236/88L convicting the rappe 11a nt under Section 376 I.P .Ca and sentencing him to undergo R.I° for 7 years, has filed this appeal. 23. The prosecutidm case as emerges out of F.I.R. (EnhP/z) dated 24n5o1§88,lodged by P.W.2 Kusumbai is that the present appellant was working as an agricultural labour in the fields of her husband (P°w°3-Jhadiram); a about 14—15 days before the lodgement of the report after the ’prosecutrix and the accused had completed part' , of the work, the accused fell her on the ground and committed rape. when the proeecutrix wanted to raise alarms, the accused armed with spade threatened her of dire consequencesmherefore, she could not call the others to help here (a 9 / t“: w» 42.. G Regarding the delay in lodging the report, she stated in the F.I.Ro that because of the fear oi reputation ( tarnishing of reputation) the report was not lodgea. After receiving the report the police agency came into action, sen$ the proeecutrix for her meéical examination and I prepared certain! panchanamas and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The challan was éiled against the accused, but as he abjured the guilt, he was‘but to trialo After recording the evidence and hearing the parties,the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to above. 3 )o shri M .D .Dhote , learned counsel f or the appellant after taking me through the contents of Ex.P/2, statements of P.W.2 Kusumbai, statements of P.Wo3 Jhadirafn and statements of P.Wc10 R.B.So Parihar, submitted that the explanation relating to the delay in submission of the report was contrary to the evidence avaflable on record:as e: the explanation is not justifiable it would be un-safe to rely upon the statements of the pro- secutrix Kusumbai (P.W.2) and her husband Jhadiram (P.W.3). He further submits that from the ,records it would clearly appear that the appellant was to‘ re-pay certain cash and paddy to the com- plainant—side, but as the same was not paid back. a false report was lodged. He submits that the appellant is entitled to acquittal. ‘v-x Q 4 ) 9 shri P .Bharat, learned counsel for the -3- G staté on the other hand submits that the deiay has been properly. explained and it is not. un—heara that people éaé not lodge the report in such mattere £or few days because they are always afraid of the consequences which may emerge out of such report. He also submits that non-description of fine details in F.I,R° or in the'statements of the witnesses recordedrgmder section‘ 161 Cr:,P.C. $019.16 not adversely affect the prosecution caseo He prays for dismissal of. the appeal. 5).. From the first information report(Ex P/Z), ‘it would appear that the prQsecutrix lodged the report on 24.5.88 alleging that about 14-15 days before the ‘oate of the report, the accused commit-a ted rape upon her“ According to her, she came to her house and narrated the incident to her husband, who in his turn gave the information to elderly persons of the village. She also stated that because of the fear of tarnishnent of image; the report was not immediately lodged. When she was examined in the Court as P¢W.2, she stated in the court that the accused committed rape upon her . In the crass-examination, in paragraph 17 she was asked a p01nted question that why she did not lodge the report for 15 days, she answered that in' the village panchayat the accused Lokanth stated that he had tarnished the character of the prosecutrix, therefore, he would not work with the prosecutrix and her husband, therefore, ¥ she had lodged the reportc She further stated err/mi 71 “J / (3:9, -4- 6 that ‘if the accused did not make such a-‘statement in the village Pénchayat, she wouLm not have lodged the report. In reply to the question that if the accused had continued to work with the prosecutr‘ix, she would not have convened panchayat meeting; she answered that '12:. the accused continued to work with them she wenld not have convened the village panchayat. The expla— hation tendered by her that as the accused narra— ted about the rape in the village panchayat; therefore, she lodged the report appears to be contrary to the statements or P.W.4 Kis‘un, P.W.5 Chandralal and P.w.6 Tekchand. 6). - According to P.w.4 Kisun, _0n the date of incident itself he was informed by Jhadiram (P.W.3) \that the accused made sexual assault on his-wife. Similar is the statement of P.W.5 Chandralal‘. P.W.6 Tekchand had stated be£ore the Court that the pa'nchayat meeting. was convened by s Jhadiram(P.wo3) m in presence of the village people, accused Loknath and his brother Salikramo Jhadiram(P.w.3) had in£ormed all the concerned that the accused omitted rape upon P.W.2 Kusumbai. On one side, the prosecutrix—P.W.2- Kusumbai says that the accused made the statement in the panohayat that he had committed rape, > therefore, she lodged the report, but from the statements of P.W.6 Tekchand it would appear that the husband of the presecutrix made this state- ment. From the statements of P.W.4 Kisun and ww—i #—» 7//‘ qs— ‘5 P°W.5 ‘Chandralal, it would clearly appear that on the date of incidem: Jhadiram-husband o£ the prosecutrix narrated the incident not only to them. but to number of person's. If. the husband o£ the prosecutrix was makafhe incident public by narra— ting the game to the number of persons, then, the cat had already come out of the‘bag and number -o£ villagers knew about the incident. If the husband o£ the p:05ecutrix was making the incident known to all concerned, then, expla- nation given by her that she was afraid of a dent h éeher reputation. would appear to be cooked-up defence. From the statement of P.W.2 Kusumbai in paragraph 19 of the statement, it would further appear that about 3/4 months prior to the date of incident, the accused had taken some loan from the prosecutrix and her husband and as despite- panchayat the accused was not ready and willing to return back the money and articles. a report ' G was lodged a 7). e: P°w.3 Jhadiram- husband of the progecutrix had clearly stated that at about 12.00 noon gay. the date of incident, he was informed by his wife“ that the accused had committed rape upon her. immediately after receiving the information he informed Kisun, Tukel and Chandralal. The expla- nation coming forward from the prosecution that the'report was not lodged because of the fear of tarnishment of image would suffer a dent in view of the conduct exhibited by thew ~kuA‘rwd’ ‘e 7 -— G could‘un&erstand the said explanation if the incident was not narrated by P°w°3 Jhaéiram to any-hwy. The prOsecution witnesses say that they were afraia of a dent to their reputation and this dent could be given to their reputation by the viilagers, therefore, they did not lodge the report, but at the same time the villagers knew about the £act.ff“that was so there was no good cause for not lodging the report right in time. From the statanents of the witnesses it would also appear that the accused did not pay back' the money on», return the paddy to the com- plainant and refused to make the payment in the panchayat‘, therefore, the report was lodged. 10)° Taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses, conduct of P°W.2 Kusum bai and Pal/1.3 Jhadiram, I hold that it would not be safe to rely upon their statements for recording conviction of the appellant. a After going through the entire records , \1 I am unable to hold that the prosecution could prove its case beyond doubt or to such a reasonablg certainity where but for convicting the accused rno other view is possible o > The findings recorded by the. adurt below deserve to and are accordingly set asideo The accused/appellant is acguitted of all the charges oThe appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. ‘ 12)., The appeal is allowed. 11). xx«,n 0. Sd/- R.S. Garg Judge > 26-07-2001 .