HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR LSB: Hon’ble Mr.T.P.Sharma,J.] CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 677/2002 APPELLANTS 1. Chhabiram S/o Rumlal Rawat aged 46 IN JAIL years occupation —labour. Jotkunwar @ Tetki W/o Chabiram Rawat occupation —Iabour Both are R/o village Kona P.S. Mahasamund distt. Mahasamund (C.G.). Vs. RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh through p/s Mahasamund distt. Mahasamund (0.6.). . Mr. Ratindra Mishra counsel for the appellants. Mr. Sushil Dubey GA for the State/respondent. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORAL (JUDGMENT) (15.12 .2008) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.03.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Mahasamund, in Sessions Trial No. 379/2001 convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under sections 376 (1)/34 of the lndian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs.300, with default stipulation. 2. The judgment is challenged on the ground that in the absence of any proof regarding the involvement of the accused/appellants in the crime in question, the court below has committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing them as mentioned above. . 3. Case of the prosecution in brief isethat on 2.9.2001 when prosecutrix Khedia Bai aged about 18 years at the relevant time, was alone in her house, accused/appellant - Jotkunwar @ Tetki came there and took her to herhouse \ kw a.“ . ”2‘ where her husband — accused/appeHant Chhabiram was also present. Prosecutrix and Jotkunwar @ Tetki slept in the kitchen whereas accused/appellant Chhabiram slept in the verandah. In the late night hours, accused Chhabiram went to the prosecutrix, caught hold of her hands and committed rape on her. When the prosecutrix tried to shout, accused Jotkunwar @ Tetki pressed her mouth. FIR Ex. P-6 was lodged on 24.10.2002 after she conceived as a result of the act of the accused/appellant Chhabiram. Spot map Ex. P—10 was prepared. 4. After recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and completing the investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants in the Court of CJM, Mahasamund, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Session from where learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund received the same on transfer for trial. ln order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the material appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 6. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the i accused/appellant as mentioned above. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on *record including the judgment impugned. 8. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that both the appellants have completed the sentence imposed on them and therefore, he is not pressing the sentence part of the judgment impugned. As regards conviction, \ convicting accused/appellants as mentioned above, is just a 11. that accused/appellant - wh she has specifically stated n pea]. suffer from any illegah'ty warranting inten‘erence in ap d proper and does not m hic