: IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARii. B‘IVL-Asri DB: Hon’ble I. M. QUDDUSI Sn Hon’ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ ‘ ACQUITTAL APPEAL No‘. 252/2010 State of Chhattisgarh Vs. ' Hemuram APPELLANT: ‘- RESPONDENTs: 'PPEAL UNDER SECTION 37811) OF THE coDE OF CRIMINAL ReCEDURE 1973 Appearance: Mr Ajlt Smgh counsel for ths Appellant 'l M1 Rakesh Thakur counsel for tha rssponde bRL ORDER -r I ' - (15.12.2011) Per I.M,qUDDUSI, J 7 l Thls appeal has been filed aoamst the Judgment and order dated 21 ll 2003 passed by the Addl Sesslons Judge, Ragnandgaon'm, Sessmns Tnal No.67/2903 acquitting the respendent of the charges framed for the offence punishable under bectlon 341 376 506 Part-ID of Indlan Penal Code The Drosecuhon story 1s That on the date of 1nc1dence when the prosecutmgl was retummg, from Disha Maidan after giving Fllehswer'to the call'ojf nature; the accused came from backside, . caught hold of her-hair; dragged her near a Babool tree and "" committed‘forceful‘ sexual; intercourse with her After ' V‘invesugation the police med charge sheet and the learned trial _ 'Court on perusal of the material and ev1dence available on - (record acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges *WwJ ;V1-,I H fimy 5 ~X7A P nt A : 7 .Th6 medlcal mport does not support the vers1on of the prosecutlon. It shows that the prosecutnx was hab1’cuatsd to sexual intercourse. No injuly has been found on her pn‘vate parts. She was a desexted woman and was a regular visitor to the house of the accused respondent. It has also come in evidence that by way of abundant precaution, the mother of accused had objected that the prosecutrix was a young lady of :22 years and should not come as she was having a boy ' 51 (accused Hemuram) aged about 19 years. The version of the eye—witness regarding use of force and causing injury during commission of rape is also not coxroborated by medical evidence as no injurywas” found except one abrasion on the left . breast and one abras1on on the right elbow whlch could be poss1b1e even 1f she would have been a consenting party her ev1dence before the Court she has deposed that she did not ‘resist the actjof the- accused. As discussed by the learned trial V Court in para30 'of the "impugned judgment, the place where it has been alleged “that the rape was committed was a public place and on raising hue and 01y by the prosecumx any body could hear the V01oe of the lady and could come to her rescue but 1t seems that she did not raise hue and cry. A perusal of the entire materials and the evidence on record would show that there is no good' ground to interfere in the impugned udgment/order passed by the tnal Court Therefore, this J appeal has no force and 1s hereby dismissed ’-ry l Sdl- LM. Quddusi Judge 5d!- G. Minhaiudd‘” Judge "