§ IN Tm HIGH caua'r 9E wDIcmURE AT JAB‘ALPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL no. H $1999. (APPEAL uuwa snc'rlou 374(2) 6F THE camnmn PRowDURE CODE. 1973) A eliant: ”(In jaiii anchxam s/o Hanan satnami. aged about 40 years. resident of ’chherkadih. Palice Station-Palati. District. Raipur (MP). ' /Ve rsus// state ofnadhya Pradesh through Palice Station-Palari. District. Raipur (MP). Re spondent : APPEAL-UNDER sEc'rlon 374(2) OF CRIMINAL paocEDURE ,, ‘ con3.197 / 3. CRIMI NAL APPEAL NO .25 42 OF 1999 I Panchram Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Chhattisgarh. ) J U D(}hiE)N T (V IN TEIE HIGH CGURT OF wHATTISGARH : BI'LASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2542 OF 1999 Panchram Vs. The State of Madhya Pradeah (Chhattisgarh) J U‘DG M gum The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09/09/1999 passed in Sessions Trial No.400 o£ 1998 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar convicting the appellant under Section 376 (1) I.P.C. and sentencing him to underge R.I. for seven years and pay a fine oi Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine t0 undergo further R.I. for two manths, has filed this appeal (2) The prosecution case in brief is that on 07/09/1998 when the prosecutrix Raneshwari Bai (PW-8)'was going to “fetch water the accused caused intimidation caught-hold o£ ‘her, dragged to his house and after felling her on ground committed rape upon her and thereafter caused her certain injuries. When the prosecutrix was going'to fetch water she was accompanied with her sister-in—law namely Maine Bai (PW-9). The said girl Maine Bai immediately, after the prosecdtrix was caught/mad rushed‘to her house and on arrival of her brother (husband of the prosecutrix) informed him of the incident. The said brother thereafter informed of the incident to his father and thereafter each of them went to the house of the accused, but on way they found the prosecutrix coming back in the injured condition who immediately informed all of them that, the accused [had hf . n/V (2) committed rape upcn her. Immediately thereafter under Ex.P/14 a written report was submitted to the palice. 0n the said application F.I .R; (Ex.P/15) was registered and the prosecutrix was sent for her medical examination; She was examined by Dr. Smt. Rajshree Devdhar (PW-h) who found number of injuries on her person, but, however, was unable to give any positive report relating to sexual assault as the woman was already married. After making proper investigation the police filed the challan before the competent Court. The trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the A parties convicted and sentenced the aocused as referred to bove . ( $mt Ki Jin, leared counsel fo the aplant, submits tht the taemen of Ramhwari Bai (PW-8 and Maine. Bi ) u Wit) w as n pi b exl assa e rv o b 3) . ran a n r pel a stts es ) a (PW-9 are nnatural and as Dr. Smt. Rajshree Devdhar ' (P- a h not give any positive onion aout the sua ult th acwsed desees t e acquitted. the er ha, hni Dee Keshari, learned (4) ounsel for he State, sums that t findigs recorded by he rd t as ng 0n oth nd S p wan c t bit he n t Court below are in accoance wih law and the findis recode th Court belo r neither perver no fancifu the apal eserves to b dismsed. (5) ameshwi Bai (PW-8) has stated befre t Cgktrt $kc 1" tha wi W in'te company of her sr--law‘was goin to feh ater, the cced pounce on er caugt-ld of her arm an dragge he tords his house. On intvention of aina i (PW-9 te acus slpped her and thereafe e took the prosutrix to his hu, thereafter h fell the prosecutr ground an committed p upo h, thereafter h o us ca k w pprehende he d ud n f se e auSed injrie on the ltsg bac, arms and the waist. On this material aspect that she as ad by t accuse and the accse on interVe-tion o Maine Bailappd her, the a rd by e w ae se r l- pe d e is Rar o he t hle h istein g tc w aus d up h hho d d r wa er M Ba ) h ced a tr ec ose e ix to d rae n er ‘ I (\f/ (3) prosecutrix is well supported by Maina Ba1 (PW-9). In the cross-examination the accused had simply suggested that because of the certain earlier disputes he was being falsely implicated. It was suggested by the accused that he was a married man and looking to his status in the life and position in the saéiety he wauld not commit such a crime. In crass-examlnaticn paragraph §1 the prosecutrix candldly stated that the accused hitx by means of a Lathi whlch caused her number of injurles. According to her she narrated the ' 1 incident to her husband and immediately thereafter the incident was informed to number of the persons. In the cross—examinatlon of Rameshwarl BaJ. (PK—8) and Malna Bai (PW-9) the accused could not brlngot$ anything to discredit the testimony of these two witnesses. The fact that the accused had caused ina‘uries to the prosecutrix is also supported by Dr. Smt. Rejshree ’Devdhar. In her examination- in-chief para 2 she has clearly stated that on her breatts and abdomenal region, there Mnumber of scratch marks. In both the arms and the legs she was feeldng tenderness. ’ There weeeimarks of the injuries near the thumb or. the left hand.’ There were other injuries on the said arms and on the outer side of the right arm there was swelling measuring 5" x 2". In the cross-examination it has been suggested that the injuries could be caused during the scuffle. Even if the suggestion is accepted it would not brighten the case of the accused because the presecutrix clearly stated thatwhm she was fell on the ground she tried to resist and thereafter 1 f the accused c0mmitted rape upon her. r'r (6‘) After going through the records afresh I ’am unable to hold that the Court below was unjustified in recording the findings against the interest of the accused. (.V’ were l ‘ r (7) I am unable to hold that present is a fit case mch i ta suffers with the vice of excessiveness in awardi sentence. The Court below was justified in conv sentehc'ing the accused. The appeal is dismissed Sd/— R.s. Garg Judge 19/03/206 . ng the ét i i ng and ;/\_ \ i