HIGH COURT Gk“ ’ - FRED A u 1 Cri min a3. Appeal irilaog <g gavewlagi— / . $i M h \D Ma Mitthulal ‘son sf agea" about 33 yrgs' Cr, ‘13, co "7,, Dga'ma: acu::wi.5x...‘L :\~L~*L#,Lr:4,, a: 7, i\#i .ir,, i Qijw1§£wé2a§al.mg.a1§§£ secti n M‘§1f£.« “Wrmym xi. L? E. SR Baloda V13. -VQr»m :sv :(mnmciazt: The Siate of LP 1 ’ I 3/ goaaewag, ’ w V ‘ r Sentence -mwmmm ‘ I u/s 376 IPC 4" for / / h, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 858 of 1992 e Mitthulal son of Dewal Satnami. APPELLANT VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Abhay Tiwgri, counsel for appellant. u z Shri Neeraj Mehta PL for respondent/State. RIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 12) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ‘ n J U D G M E N T 7 (19.02.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment oated 7.8.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baioda Bazar, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 87/1991 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 2.6.1990 at about 4.45 p.m. FIR (Ex. P—3) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-2) aged about 65 years alleging that on that day at about 2 p.m. when she was taking care of the crop standing on her field by sitting on a hut erected thereon, accused/appellant came there arid asked for a glass of water from her. lt is alleged that when she offered him water, he threw the glass, caught hold of her, made her lie on the ground, removed her sari and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant gUIlty, prosecution has examined 10 Witnesses in support of Its case Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code , of. Criminal Procedure in Which he denied the charges levelledi against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 619 _Z_ After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offences as mentioned above. 4. G 5. Heard counsel. for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6.; Counsel for the appellant submits that a very unnatural story ha‘s been displayed by the prosecutrix. He submits that it is impossible for anyone to commit an offence of rape with an old lady of‘66 years of age. He submits that as per the statement of the prosecutrix she was subjected to rape for two hours and this itself shOws that the prosecutrlx has falsely implicated the amused/appellant because no one can commit such an offence for two long hours. ‘He submits that no resistance whatsoever was offered by her while being subjected to .-rape by the accused/appellant. He submits that medical report of the prosecutrix also does not support the case of theprosecution. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that an old lady of 66 years of age has been ravished by the accused/appellant and therefore he is not entitled to be viewed sympathetically. He submits that the prosecutrix is an old gullible woman and even if she has stated that she was raped for two long hours, literal meaning thereto should not be attached and it has to be understood in °the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that the medical reportof the prosecutrix very much supports the case of the prosecution where the doctor who medically examined the prosecutrix has categorically stated that she had suffered injuries on her private part. 8. Prosecutrix.(PW—2_) has stated in her evidence that at about 2 v p.m. when she was keepin\g a watch over the crop standing on herj field by sitting on a hut erected‘thereon, accused/appellant camel there, asked a glass of water from her and when the prosecutrix. gave him water he threw the same, caught hold of her, made her lie » on the ground, removed her sari and then committed forcible sexual , @ ’3,_ intercourse with her. While committing the offence, it is alleged that the accused/appellant had gagged her mouth and had even pressed her neck also. She has further stated that after completion of the act, accused wore his cloths and left the spot. She, thereafter, came back to her house and narrated the entire incident to her grand son Shri Ram and grand daughter in law Kutelinbai and then the FIR (EXP—3) was lodged by her. She has stated that when the accused/appellant made her lie on the ground by holding her waist, she was feeling pain on her back and hips. She was medically examined by Dr. (Smt.) \{rinda Mandge (PW-9) who vide medical report (Ex. P-9) has stated that on 3.6.1990 she had medically examined the prosecutrix and found a tear injury on her private part measuring ‘/2 cm. in length. According to this witness, the said injury had been caused within 18 and 24 hours of her medical examination. This witness has further stated thatalong with the application Ex. P-1OA she had sent the sari of the prosecutrix for examination and had found the semen like spots on it at five places and blood stains as well. This witness has opined that the said injury ' could be caused on account of sexual intercourse. Dr. H.N. Nayak (PW-1) who medically examined the accused/appellant has stated in his evidence that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Supporting the statement of the prosecutrix, Prahlad (PW-7) has stated in his evidence that when she came back from the filed she was weeping and on being asked by him she had told him that the accused/appellant had come to her demanding wat’er and on‘water being given to him, he threw the same and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. Shri Alim Khan (PW-10) who conducted the investigation in the case has supported the case of the prosecution. 9. Thus from the material available on record it is clear as a broad day light that the prosecutrix had fallen prey to the lustful act ' of the accused/appellant. The animalistic mindset of the accused/appellant in ravishing 'the sexagenarian lady leaving to live her residual life in ignominy has stirred the judicial conscience of this Court. Such a mentality, if not wiped out through judicial surgery, .‘j would incessantly play havoc on overall societal set up. Accused in l __q_ this case thus has been rightly dealt with by the Court below and the conviction and sentence recorded by it being strictly in consonance with the settled legal position, calls for nothing to interfere. 9 10. Consequently, no merit is involved in the case in hand and therefore the appeal is bound to have the fate of dismissal. 11. Dismissal being the result, it is recorded accordingly. /sdl- Maker Yr§t3“ker . Ju§ge . V '