^ __„— % •CFO'660058374 :Si'lfi isiiS'ci's iU^iiaK.!;; -E IN THE BIGH COURT OF M&DHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Cr.A.No. 7 ? 7 o£ 1994 ie\^>~ ^e^' ' • EaiS.J"^'"*, f '' ^&i^si-'-"" Appellantt Accused (In Jail) Saaaru, aged 31 years, Respoaaeatt / son of Jailal Gadariya, resident of Khanihardih, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur.M.P. versus Tbe Stateof M.P. / CRIMINAI. APPEAI. UNDER SECTIOK 374(2) O? THE CODEOF CKIMINAL PROCEDUBS.1973 '**>. ^,^ HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. hflr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 1994 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Samaru State ofMadhya Pradesh Shri Suryakant Mishra counselforthe appellant. Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIIVIINAL PROCEDURE. -JUDGIVIENT (25.06.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.7.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur inSessions Trial No. 95/1992 convicting the accuse.d/appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.4.1991 at about 6.15 p.m. FIR Ex. P-7 was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-6), a married lady of 30 years alleging that on that day at about 3 p.m. when she was going to work in the field, aceused/appellant came there jn a drunken condition, caught hold of her, madeher lie on the ground by hair and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. 3. So as to hold the accused/appeMant guilty, prosecution has examined 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also reporded under section 313of the Code of Criminal^Brocedure in which tie denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. / 4. After hearirig the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced ttie accused/appellant a^mentioned above. 5. .Heardcounsel for the parties and perused the material available on record incluciing the judgment impugned. 6. ' Gounsel fpr.the-appellant submits that the present is either a case of consei^'or false implication. 'He submits that there were number of persons f£'^'\ WSit l<- around the place where the incident took place and the prosecutrix raised her voice for help, the people of that locality must have come to her rescue. He submits that even the medical report of the prosecutrix (Ex. P- 10) also does not support the case of the prosecution. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment counsel for the respondent/State submits that the plea of false implication and that of consent cannot be taken at a time. He submits that the prosecutrix was very prompt in lodging the report which shows that neither she wasa consenting party nor has she falsely roped the accused in the crime in question. 8. Prosecutrix (PW-6) has stated in her evidence thaton the date of incident when she was going to her workplace, near a pond, the accused/appellant came there drunk, caught hold of her hair and after making her lie on the ground committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. According to her, she immediately went to her husband namely Jivrakhan (PW-7) and narrated the incident to him and then the report Ex. P-7 was lodged by her. In cross examination, this witness has stated that near the pond there exists a road but at the time of incident nobody was present there. She further stated that though the people were fishing in the pond but nobody had turned up even after she cried for help. Jivrakhan (PW-7) has stated that on the date of incident at about 4 p.m. the prosecutrix had informed him that the accused/appellant had subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse and then the report was lodged by her. Kodan (PW-1) is the witness of seizure of certain articles vide Ex. P-2 and P-3 has not supported the case ofthe prosecution. Alakh Ram (PW-3) is the Patwari who had prepared the spot rnap. Pawan Singh(PW-4) - the witn.ess of seizur^ of certain articles vide Ex. P-4 though admits his signature on the seizure memo, he states thatno seizure was made in his presence. Smt. Sandhya Dwivedi (PW-9) is the investigating officer who has supported 'the case of the prosecution, Though the doctor who had medically . examined ;the prosecutrix has not been examined in the ^Court, medical report Ex. P-10 has been admitted by the -accusecl/appellant himself. - -s - 9. Minute examination of the material available on record particularly the statement of the prosecutrix makes it clear that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape by the accused/appellant. Her husband Jivrakhan (PW- 7) has also supported the statement of the prosecutrix. Evidence of the prosecutrix does not indicate that she has falsely implicated the accused/appellant in the case in hand or that she was a consenting party to his act.Her conduct in lodging the report promptly also goes to show that she has not roped the accused/appe<lant in a false case and that the defence has not brought forward any material on record to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix. 10. In view of above, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Court below appears to be well founded and no disturbance is required to be made in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal being without merit is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed assuch.Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand caneelled. He be sent behind the bars to serve out the remaining part ofsentence imposed on him. Ssf' PritinkerQiwabir Jsdge -*<»-