APPELLANT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FSB: Hon'ble Mr.T.P.Sharma.J.I Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2002 Barati Ram VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on °> -2-2009 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge /< / r HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FSB: Hon'ble Mr.T.P.SharmaJ.1 Criminal Appeal No- 99 of 2002 APPELLANT VERSUS RESPONDENT Barati Ram, aged about 39 years, son of village Jom, Thana Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, CG. State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, CG. None appears for the appellant. Mr.Sameer Behar for the respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(21 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT ( 3 .02.2009) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.12.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh in Sessions Trial No. 101/2001 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three months respectively. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The judgment is challenged on the ground that the trialCourt has committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned above without there being any cogent and reliable evidence available on record against him. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 25.1.2001 at about 4 p.m. when prosecutrix Kevribai aged about 33 years was grazing animalsin the filed, accused/appellant suddenly came from behind, felled her down and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On hearing her cries, Budharu and Phutanbai who were also grazing ^- ^ "^ v animals in the nearby filed came there and after seeing them the accused/appellant fled away. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to them and after reaching home to her mother-in-law, Kotwar - Goverdhan and her elder brother-in-law Akalha. Thereafter, on the next day the first information report Ex. P-7 was lodged and the prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Leeta Ramteke (PW-6) who found abrasions on her right elbow and she was accustomed to sexual intercourse. Two vaginal slides were prepared. Spot map Ex. P-1 was prepared. Broken bangles were seized vide Ex. P-2. Bangles worn by her were seized vide Ex. P-3 for comparison and they were compared vide Ex. P-4. Accused/appellant was also medically examined by M.G.Tiwari (PW-4) who opined thatthe accused/appellant was capable of sexual intercourse. Sealed packets were seized vide Ex. P-8 and P-9. Over the Sari and vaginal slides of the prosecutrix presence of sperm was confirmed. 4. After recording the statements of the witnesses under section 161 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure and completion of investigation charge sheet was filed in the Court of ACJM, Khairagarh who in turn committed the case to the courtof Sessions from where learned additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, received the same on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the material appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. ^-Y.. 6. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. 7. Accused/appellant remained in custody from 10.2.2001 to 9.6.2001 and thereafter from the date of judgment impugned i.e. 24.12.2001. He compteted his sentence in the year 2008 and probably he might have been released form jail after serving the sentence. Therefore, no representation is made on his behalf. 8. Perused the memo of appeal and the material available on record. 9. The accused/appellant has challenged his conviction on the ground that the trial Court has considered the contradictions and omission and that the prosecutrix has fatsely implicated him on account of village enmity. Moreover, the medical evidence has also nto supported the case of the prosecution. 10. Counsel for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all shadow of doubt. He submitted that nothing has been suggested to the prosecutrix that she has falsely implicated the accused/appellant. Statement of the prosecutrix is supported by the medical evidence and the evidence of other witnesses. 11. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties regarding complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, 1 have examined the statement of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. Prosecutrix Kevribai (PW-1) a married lady aged about 33 years has categorically deposed in her evidence that on the date of incident while she was grazing cattle in the field, accused suddenly ^^i^w^y .:^ came from behind and after felling her down committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On hearing the cries raised by the prosecutrix, Budharu and Phutanbai came there and after seeing them the accused/appellant fled away. On account of being felled down by the accused/appellant she received injuries on her right elbow. She narrated the incident to Budharu and Phutanbai and after reaching home to her mother-in-law, Kotwar and elder brother-in-law. Bangles worn by her were broken. She lodged the report on the next day. Phutan Bai (PW-3) has stated in her evidence that while collecting dung cake in the filed, she heard the cries of prosecutrix and went to prosecutrix along with Budharu who was grazing animals in the filed, where prosecutrixtold them that accused committed rape on her. They also saw the accused/appellant running away. She also saw the injuries received the prosecutrix. Akalha (PW-2) and Budharu (PW-5) have also supported the statement of the prosecutrix. Dr. Leela Ramtake (PW-6) who examined the prosecutrix has stated that on examining the prosecutrix she noticed abrasions on her right knee and she was accustomed to sexual intercourse. On examination of the sari of the prosecutrix and the vaginal slides presence of sperm was confirmed. FIR shows that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was residing in village Jom whereas her husband was residing at Nagpur. Thus on the date of incident the prosecutrix was not living with her husband but confirmation of presence of sperm on her sari and vaginal slides shows that she had sexual intercourse with someone. In paragraph No.2 of her evidence she has stated that in her village there are two groups but she did not belong to either of them. Akalha (PW-2), Phutan Bai (PW-3) and Budharu (PW-5) have also admitted groupism in the village. Defence has cross examined these witnesses at length but nothing was elicited to show that the prosecutrix was an ^ A-.— -y active member of any party and therefore she has falsely implicated the accused/appellant in the crime in question. Statement of the prosecutrix is supported by Phutanbai (PW-3) and Budharu (PW-5) who immediately rushed to the prosecutrix after hearing her cries and she narrated the incident to them. 12. In thecase of rape normally reliance is placed on the statement of the prosecutrix and no corroboration for the same is necessary. In this case, statement ofthe prosecutrix is corroborated by the statement of Phutanbai (PW-3), Budharu (PW-5), Akalha (PW-2) and Ushabai (PW-7) apart from the medical evidence and scientific evidence. The prosecutrix has clearly stated that the accused/appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her without her will and on hearing her cries, Photanbai (PW-3) and Budharu (PW-5) immediately rushed to the field where incident took place and she narrated incident to them. This shows that the prosecutrix was not a consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant. Prosecutrix has received injuries on her body. 13. After appreciating the evidence available on record the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. The judgment passed by the Court below is well founded and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appeal. 14. Consequently, the appeal has no substance and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. y Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge