~ ” IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ASPUR AT BIL Criminal Appeal No. $€ZF& /2003 Gadal Kawar, S/o Phh‘m Sidar, ’ aged R/o Sakin about Bundeli, 30 years, Thana malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir—Champa (C61) VERSUS State .of Chhattmgarh Through RS. Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir—Cham?a (CO) ‘rhe I.P.C. and semenc‘ed To riggrous imprisanmenf fQr ‘s‘ive years and a fim of Rs.500,/- and ih defaui? “o unriergo ud&i'i*iaml RI. for mo ‘ monfhs imée’r- Sewiori 450 E.P.C. i "ro rigcrousL impr§sonman? for 1G years and a fine of Qs.500/~ and defaul? f0 undargo addii’ional RE, “for ‘i’wo mon‘?hs under Section 3 6 {1) LP‘C. in Sessiom Tria! Na; 267/2002 by Shri Gaux‘om Cho radio, Addiw‘iona! Sessions Judge, Soki‘i, Disiric‘? Biiuspur vide judgm n'i" don‘ed 19.12.2002. . 3. [Shhi Pushpencim Paf'ei, §e med coursse! for i’he appelian'? submifi'ed a? i‘he very oufsa'? Tim h€ wouid no? assaii fhe-impugned judgmeni'da‘ied 19.12.2002 on m ri'is bu? wouid argue oniy on The ques‘rion of serifence. l .4. In view of fire submission, fhia oppeoi was heard oniy on fine r" r r .L ,/> quasi'ion of senience. d V XI-HC_22 3W W . mm ’ \ Ciy.:.9.;/.v..a~...3&/a3 1H 200 ma mm m 31ml mm mmmafw WW‘§WW $W * 68‘0%.2@0é Appelianf—&adai Kawgr by Shri Pushpemd‘m Pa'i’él, Aaivocnfé. ‘Em'ha by SEri Ashish S‘nuklai Goxér-nmzrh Advocd‘?e. ’ The append is heard finui§y Tc day. 2h The appeEanf was con'vic‘red under Sec‘mn 450gnd 376 {1) of XI-HC-22 im 1"‘ne hw$e commi?i=ea‘ rape m har. Haaring shau‘ré (if m‘osecui'rix, Rajamm Gabeia P.W.4 saw i‘he appeiian‘i' iyin§ m1 ?he road umder $‘Eqe im‘hema of “quark. . ¢8 5 2002 a? § $5 A M arm iodged fws+ mformm‘ton repomr manual excmlnm’ion Dr Lama Rumia PW7 found abrasmm with redness 0F: her gefi' shou‘ee. Jom , .ef eibwu Jom‘f' back 9f ‘ihorax righ‘r side, Eef‘r si&e of abdomen. On infernai examimfmrl, she found ma? 'i'hare Was a bruise on foid of righ? side on cervix. She oiso found bruise on Labia Mejom and Pea‘ness aroma Labia Miriam. She found sma¥§ eoni’usion on *rhe back of her Eeff‘i'high. The prosecui'rix also compiainea of paih on iower para-of. fhigh and aiso'on back of Thor-ax am} buifock. I? was opined i'ha‘i' forcemMecen‘r g I sexuai im'er'course had been commi‘H-ed wifh "r'ne‘ prosecufr‘ix. The appeilanf was aiso 11.00 PM. or: 27.5.2602 in viEhga 5. Brief faci's are ‘rhcfé‘ a‘r abOU" Jorkhapam Adbhar P.S; Maikharouda Thé appeiiap‘r coi’nmi‘i‘md house 1‘respaés wi‘i'h inmm" 1'0 'commi“? rape on ‘ri'xe prosecuwix anci ‘rhereafi‘er despife sfif‘? resis‘i‘mce by 'E’he pwsecui'r'ix whowas diam 1’he B§1uwan¥al ?.W.6 asked' #he cppeilcm‘? who maée exTm juéicia! confe5$ion of having commi‘r‘reri rape an 'i'ha prosecu‘Wix. "We prosecu‘i‘r‘ix Gig). i‘oid him ‘rha‘r 1"he mpgeiiam" had commEffe& rape on her; The prosecuwix’wém' To Paiice Smé'iw Mmkkaraudc shumud i2 Wome‘er‘é norh or" *he max: day Le. Ugon madécdi'iy examinedby Dr. RP: Kurrak ?.W.5 miho fdund him‘capabb of perfo’rmirng $exucd‘ im‘ercour’se. Affar compie‘i'ion pf invesfigcx?ion, ‘E’he a‘ppelimtwas prosacu‘i'ed. 4 6. The agpeiian?.abjured The gfW‘, pleaded innocencz and ledno evidence in defenbe. The prosecution examined as many as 12 Mfmesses. Reiying upon fhe evidenCe ied by Thepméecu?ian, ‘i‘he ieamed ffiai Judge comviched mud senfemced we appeHc‘r}? as shnwr; in pamg mph —2. 7. Shri’ ?ushpendm Pa’rei, learned ‘ceunsei fer ‘the appegam submi‘h‘ee ‘i'hm' i’he appeilam commi‘i'md ‘rhe Gffence whi§e being unéer ii'ae iiifiuence a'f iiqaor, heme ‘ihe eubs’mmive sememe 0‘? rigor-ow impri$orimenrr for Ten yearS'avuaiaeed .uéider 5ec~rian 375{1) .I.P.C. shouid be reduceéio minimum Serieme provided under See'iiori 376 19C; x u. 8. On f‘rhe dike? hands Shri shish Shukia. ieamed Gdvemmee? ‘sédvocm‘e 6pposec§ i'he prayer an con‘iended i‘na‘? censidering ’rhe manger ‘ ii'i which ”‘ri’ae appelian‘i J vmi . niiy raped a Widaw . af'ier forcibiy I _. em‘ering her héuse iai'e a? nigh? and ‘rhe injuries. ’suSminedg by Tim prosecu‘irix mi oniy an her prim? pnr'rs bu? deg gm her persan, 1’he gé’r‘a’i ‘H f F}; XI-HC—22 sem‘ence awarded by fine iearned im’erference. x 9-. ' Havingrheard rivoi submissions, I have perused fhe Session :mmer of douB’r’ The? The who”); Casz N9267i2002. There is'no unrebu‘i‘ied’iesfimony of the prosecu‘rrix, a widow, which is fuiiy corroborafed by The medicai evidence of Dr. Laii‘ra Rajnalu RWY as Gabeia ?.W.6 proved beyand ’ihe forci’iaiy enfered ‘ihe house of “ihe 2002 and commiimd rape on her her. Theéinjuries sus'reined by The prosecufrix refiec'i‘ fhe vioiem' na’rure of sexual assaui‘? coyrimi'r'ied by The appeiianx . aiss by 1"!12 evidence of Bhuwaniai shadow of doubjr The? The appeilan? pmsecu?ri>’< ia‘re a? nigh? (m 27.5. despHe $i'if‘f resisfdyice offered by 10. . Having Thus considered ‘rhe am of “The considered opiniog't 'fhmi' Seciion 450 and 376(i).I.P.C. is we irifem‘eremce. ‘ 11. So far as The-argumen?s ad ’rhe «fppeHdn? regarding reducfion 'i'he considered opinion iho‘r in v friai Judge did no? mli for any \' evidence ied by fhe prosecufrix, 1 sonviciion of 'ihe apgeiidm’ under i founded and does m? caii for any vavnced‘by The iearned aouneei for of senfence is concerned, i am of iew of The ,vioien’i’ 'sexuai ‘ossaui'i' 51% W ~f~ / i /-' i s XI-HC-22 cammE?1~eé$ by 1"hé appeiian? upon ’ ’rrésfxxss lafejm" nigh‘rrand ”rhe inJu v duriag The sexuai assauh' by fhe a; a widow affer' commiffing house > ' rigs suSfairjed by fhe‘pmsecu‘r‘rix )pelhntfhe sén?ence awarded by The iear‘ned friai Judge under Sectipon’ 4-50 & 376 (1) I.P.C. c§id mi“ ca“ for my im'er’fer‘ence wha‘ifsoever. 19 devoid of, mart;- is dismisge¢ ’II‘L— Sdl- ‘ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh 1 ’7 ‘ ’ Judge \, \ \v 1 \ £13m 12. 1h 1"ne resuh', #his appacd bair r U i v ”*7 i w ‘ WWW