3'eq' •<||<|KI<|, »Tfl+l'l<o, fslriltiy *(1*<^1 sh^)l<* V^, 200 an^r VSRK (4'<l'l«<<iar) ail^l.^r R-o'k wr WKV ' **< .E'SSi'igESaiSi!-, TCnwafersiT^r HIGH COURT OF CHHA CRIKIINAL APPEAL APPELLANT INJAIL Qanesh Ram, S/o Sakharam A^ed about 40 years, R/o Kakrel Plalice Station Somni, District R|ajnandgaon, MP. VEKiSUS RESPONDENT Present: Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, coun Mr. Neeraj Mehta, PL for (6th Septer Dhirendra Mishra, J The appellant has prefej 374(2) of the Code of Criminal of conviction and order of sentt S.T.No. 362/99 whereby leariji Durg has convicted the appell) IPC and sentenced him to und^i of Rs.500/- and in default (|i additional R.I. for six months. G RPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50.UUO. qiF4[<rt*i)i ^TR?ff tf l^cst' ^Tri^lK ^srfOTan^i (TISGARH AT BILASPUR N0. 1315 OF 2000 tate of Madhya Pradesh >el for the appellant. he State/respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT aber2007) red this appeal under Section 'rocedure against the judgment ;nce dated 14.3.2000 passed in :d Additional Sessions Judge, int under Section 376(1) of the "go R.I. for ten years, pay a fine payment of fine to undergo \\... 3rcT -^ww-if, •a-^w\6, Rldiy^ V^W *t(|cK'"-""----------------^ 200 SIT^T •(igq; (Tpfgq^T) SII^I.^T Vw* wirsiRwamw U(»y»i ;!?-•!;::t-^FSl-S%J Wiiw^fersii^r 2. Case of the prosecution father of the prosecutrix, aged a together along with Muritbai, s The prosecutruc lodged a report allegations against the accused atabout 11.00 p.m. on 31.8.19< step niother Muritbai. It has that since two months before rapped her and threatened her one and thereafter, he repeatec basis of above report offencf accused/appellant. The pros examination and lady Dr. N. I< and gave her report of Ex.P/5. charge sheet was filed againsl Court of Judicial Magistrate Fir^ 3. During trial the prosecu| Thereafter, statement of the Section 313 of the Cr.P.CI circ-umstances appearing again) and pleaded innocence and fals( GRPRJ —FS/246—2/2007 — 50.UOO. •riili'i'fli ilwif if feis> TfSj^R ^aifiman^r i|n brief is that the accused is (>out 18 years, and they resided tep mother of the prosecutrbc. t>n 2nd September 1999 making that he committed rape on her f9, which was witnessed by her Iso been mentioned in the FIR •1.8.1999 the accused forcibly [not to disclose this fact to any this act every night. On the was registered against the ;cutrix was sent for medical ]aan examined the prosecutrbc After completing investigation the accused/appellant in the .t Class, Durg. ion examined eight witnesses. accused was recorded under in which he denied the >t him in the prosecution case implication in the crime. sii^i.^rl^iig? WITSIICT 'gniw fSKS!'if" 3^ET -^WW^, '3fS\WI'c, Rlrilti^ 'mwir *NI<*> -•--•••••—-•-•••••••---••,... ^ 200 sri^r ira^ ('ipf^^i) ww^fte aii^i 4. Learned Additional Ses; for the respective parties, aceused/appellant as inendon| 5. Learned counsel for appellant has been roped ii Muritbai with whora he does report has been lodged by Muritbai. He further subjnits examined by Dr. N. Khan (1 injuries over the person of th^ prosecutrK is habitual of se( opinion regarding recent inter| 6. On the other hand, that conviction of the appelli the prosecutrfac who is none offence was wifaiessed by hi|s reason for the prosecutrb; appellant in a false case anc|l against his own daughter. 7. I have heard learned cc) the material available on judgment. GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007 — 50.UUO. i>i<<t<i«i1-iw^i ^f tezt ^fe^ii ^; STfilH 31I^r 'f.ons Judge after hearing counsel convicted and sentenced the :d above. he appellant submits that the a false case by his own wife lot have cordial relations and the he prosecutrix as per advice of that the prosecutrus was W-4) and she did not find any prosecutrix and opined that the sual intercourse and no definite :ourse can be given. learbed counsel for the State submits nt is based on the statement of 'ther than his own daughter, the wife Muritbai and there is no and Muritbai to implicate the that too, for an offence of rape unsel for fhe parties and perused -ecord including the impugned d-CT^ "q|A||<rt.l|, ®Tf1+f'16,Is|<''l|'y^< ^Wv{[ **114» V^ 200 sn^r •q'ra; (4<<Fl»<<«i) SII^I.qiT Ri-li* WIT31R?r:*41«b ssr-' to 'Rarar ^ito SD^I 8. The prosecutrK in her accused is her father and PW All of them had gone to earn th| and resided together in the Two-three months before th( rapped her and threatened hej anyone and thereafter, he rep( the cross-examination she hai lodged the report at the instarj though she has admitted thatl occasionally quarreled with ea|i examination she has stuck to chief. The defence has not bt makes her evidence untrui statement is corroborated by wife of the appellant and step) has stated that they resided ii|> Navatariya where they had gor|( three used to sleep on the floo^ the night she woke up due husband committing rape wit^i the report was lodged. She h< in lodging the report. GR.PRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50,UUO. CM^I^I^II l^R^ff "^f 1^i^ ^^K ^3iRFT3Ilt?t Istatement has stated that the |2 Muritbai is her step ruother. ;ir livelihood to village Navataria jame hutment of one Ansuiya. incident the accused forcibly {• not to disclose the incident to ^ated the offence every night. In denied the suggestion that she :e of her step mother Muritbai, |her step mother and her father :h other. In the lengthy cross- lier statement of examination-in- ;n able to elicit anything which ^tworthy or unreliable. Her |the statement Muritbai (PW-2), mother of the prosecutrix, who the house of Ansuiya at village to earn their livelihood. All the together. A day before Rakhi in to stomach ache and saw her the prosecutrb; and thereafter, id explained the reason for delay "y. •.»:.1.RiS..:; ^,^ ^I.IRILillWI. , 11111) 3^? -^l'Mlrt'il, ®Tn<1'l<S,KliTll^y *«1CTI sb*<|cb ••••-----•--•--•••••---•••••-•• ^ 200 an^?r tigg; (ijcif-iBi<i!») •a^i?>i ft-fi^i WIT 3]R^l gmiq? ^tf:-^te.,=.A.-^.:^ .<;?-> S'??fr-^%3:?i^SS5i^^' f( 'S^IIW^l 311^1 9. Thus, from the statement i.e. PW-1 Ku. Chhoti, the prosc Dr. N. Khan, which is als' involvement of the accusedi established and the Court beli conclusion that the appellant daughter. 10. Leamed counsel for th( appellg.nt is injail since 4.9.19' completed 8 years jail sentence, R.I. iraposed on him may be undergone by him. 11. Looking to the gravity of| committed rape with his owij counsel for the appellant cannoj 12. In the result, the appea) liable to be dismissed and is acd GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50.UUO. ^t<4d<^*T *ffR<fl|tf feyll l^!^1' i;3ifOT aii^i of the above three witnesses sutrfae, PW-2 Muritbai 8s PW-4 )) corroborated by the FIR, ^.ppellant in the offence is ^w has rightly reached to the :ommitted rape with his own appellant submits that the f9 and as such, he has already therefore, sentence of 10 years "educed to the period already the offence that the appellant daughter, prayer of leamed be accepted. being devoid of substance is ordingly, dismissed