m m 200 31mm (W) a: é) WW, Wm, W m Hi 200 Wm (W) mmm mmii‘wtrw‘ §Nifvmm in her house when the accu? condition, threw her on the floor even‘after the resistance offerec' the shouts of the prosecutrix h her grand—daughter Dhanbai ca committing rape with the prose accused fled from the place of il wés lodged on 24.3.2002 by th u ’6 Bilaigarh, Raipur. The prose examination to Community Heal Dr. N. Bajpai (PW—6) examinec EXP/5. After completing inves against the accused. 3. During trial the proseC‘ Thereafter, statement of the Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. circumstances appearing again: and stated that the village is fa has been implicated due to ani and'false implication in the c Court after hearing counsel for t and sentenced the accused/app 4. Learned counsel for the conduct of thei‘proseout ' ied entered in an inebriated and committed rape upon her by the prosecutrix. Hearing er neighbour Korrdi’b‘ai as also ne there and saw the accused cutrix. After their arrival, the Icident. Report of the incident e prosecutrix at Police Station cutrix was sent for medical th‘ Center, Baloda Bazar where l her and gave her report of tigation charge sheet was filed ltion examined 8 witnesses. accused was recorded under in “which he denied the ;t him in the prosecution case ,ction ridden and therefore, he mosity. He pleaded innocence rime. However, learned trial he respective parties, convicted :llant as mentioned above. appellant submits that from )l u be evident that she was a GRPR] — FS/246—v 2/2007 ii 50,000‘ £7 r' WW,W,W @D W F‘L 200 WW (W) mwa‘wm é:a1'1%rqm mmm 3 consenting party as she did not raise alarm at the time of incident and a false report was iodged against the accused only because the incident was witnessed by her grand-daughter Dhanbai (PW—3) and neighlgour Kondibai (PW-4). He further argues that the report has been lodged with a"de1ay of four l [ways and there is no explanati 5. On -the other hand, 1e rned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judg ‘ ent submits that conviction of the appellant is based on the v rsion of the prosecutrix which is duly corroborated by the stat ments of eyewitnesses i.e. PW— 3 Dhanbai and PW—4 Kondibai also the‘“statement of Dr. N. Bajpai (PW-6) who has examin d her and found external and internal injuries on her private arts. 6. 7 I have heard learned co nsel for both the parties and perused the evidence available n record as also the impugned judgment. 7. PW—2 prosecutrix has st ted in her deposition that her husband died some 10 years fore, Kondibai resides in her neighbourhood and the n of her grand daughter is Dhanbai. Her son Jagdish ha gone to Sarangarh to earn his livelihood. On the date of inc t at about 4.00 p.m. she was alone in the house when the ac used came there and they were involved in physical scuffl He forcibly made her lie and thereafter rapped her; Hea g. erijishouts Kondibai came there FS/246 2/2007 ~~ 50,000. 0 mwfaai? for the same. o GRPRJ s e a i n e @ WWW (I mm ‘@m $3fErwané¥I and saw the accused committng rape, whereupon she also shouted. Thereafter, the appei‘ant fled towards Badi (kitchen ‘v garden). In the meanwhile, grand daughter of the prosecutrix Dhanbai also came there ‘rand saw the accused committing rape. On being sent by the medically examined by the doc tor. she hasstated that she unsucc essfully tried to resist. Though she has stated that she did not receive any injuries on her hgnd and Ie‘g during scuffle, but as per the injury report of Dr. N. Bajpai (PW—6) who examined her on 28.3.2003 it has been observed that there was superfi police, the prosecutrix was In the cross-examination :ial laceration on skin overlying lower part of sacrum and there was superficial laceration lateral to right labia minora, s Apart from above injuries, she crythema on center and healir has further opined that the’inj may be caused during intercou The statement of the prosecutri statement of PW—3 Dhanbai, z stated that her grand-mother home, when she returned committing rape with her grz further corroborated by the sta has stated that at the time of running and informed her? erficial laceration on forchetle. also sustained abrasion over .g at periphery was seen. She .1ries present over private parts tse within a period of one week. X is further corroborated by the aged about 13 years, who has Sukmat Bai was alone in her home she saw the accused ind-mother Her statement is terrient of Kondibai (PW—4), who incident Dhanbai came to her t the accused was rapping the GRPRJ FS/246 2/2007 eA 50,000. IL; i \V' j, W Hi 200 Wm (W) i t \ GRPRJ V 8 Thus, from the statemen of the. prosecutrix and other 3 establish thatthe appellant co itted rape with the prosecutix against her wishes and the tria Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicti g the appellant under Sections 376(1) ’and 450 of the IPC. 9. Learned counsel for th appellant submits that the appellant has been convicted a d sentenced to undergo R.l. for 10 years under Section 376( ) of the IPC, which his too v excessive, therefore; looking’to the facts and circumstances of the case, he may be'sentenced o the period already undergone by him. 10. Taking into considerati n the evidence available on recerd, conviction of the appell nt under Sections 376(1) 85 450 7’ of the IPC is maintained. HO ever, jail sentence of 10 years’ 12.1. imposed upon him unde Segtion 376(1) of the IPC is reduced to seven years’ R.I. Fi e sentence shall remain as it is. “‘a‘ —L’; a Sd/. DmENDRA MISHRAjl ‘ p FS/246 2/2007 ——50,u00. Judge ‘_