^] fftefes! COURT OF CHHATTISSARH. BILASPUR •'ss.sia.'ss'&saiS A-Sn s. A, ri/ 3?^s Malieadia Vs. State ofM.P. fNow Chhattisffarhl Post foi-: 02.07.2007 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ; L- 'N !••/ teill^fe^^^l COURT OF CHHATnSGAKH,_B!LASPUR. APPEAL No. 1211 ot 1999 Mahendra Son of Khem.la' Marar, aged about 20 years, resident of Ohoghopuri; P,S. Gunir;, Distt, Durg, (C.G.) State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) mrougn folice ytauon uurur, District- Diirg (C.G.) ande* se' Ot'CS.P.C. •r^St^^^y.; Shri Inder Chaiid Rakecha, counsel for fhe appellaiit. Shri Sushil Diibey, Govt. Advocate, for fhe State. T JUDGMENT (02.07.2007) 2.1 Sciiig o.^si'icved with tlic iuflsizient of couviction Bn.d ordcr of seiiteiice -(Is.tcd iy.4i.99* D8.ss€td bv tlie Ad.ditioi'isl Sessioiis Judge, Balod, District- Durg (C,G) m Sessions Trial No.39/ 190Q, 'vhereby tlie said Court coax'icted tlie appeUant uiider Sectioiis 376 (1) & 450 ofI.P.C. aiid sentenced him to undergo R.I. fc.r 7 Tgsx's aiid to D3'S7 s fiue ofRs,500/~. io. -defeiilt ofusviiicnt offliie to farther lindergo R.I. for 6 nionfhs and R.I. for 3 yeare and to pa}' a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of pa^'inent of fine to fiirfher undergo R.I, for 2 montlis with a further direction to ruii fhe sentences coD.ciin'ently, the appeUajit has pi'efencd this criiniaal appeal. s- J (r. •s 3- Cr.A. No. 1211 of 1999 (2( The case ofthe prosecution is that on 11.11.1QQ8 a.t abozit 9,00 p.m,, fhe prosecutrix Dulari Bai (P.W.-l) was sleeping in her Iiouse along wifh her siaaf childl'en. Her liLisband gone to ths hc.lise of a neighboiir for watchhig Television. Tafeing advantage of this situation, fhe appeUant entered uito her house aiicl coijsiiiitted foi^'cful iiitercourse a.gs.iust lier, 'Wlicu lic l^ft lier, slie iiTiiii"di^tely iia.iTutecl th-e stor^?' to onc Sukli 1Ba.i (P.W,--31 siiid. wtien lier liusbBiid. PooiTiiilBl Ssliu (P.W,-2^ 1'^tiiiiied. to tlie house, sfae also nan^ited the story to him. Thereafter, in the night itself, fhe First tnfonnation Report (Ex.-P/1) was lodged at about 23.45 hours. During fhe course of investigation, fhe niDsscutrix wss scut for nie'dicsl exsxniii^.tioD. 3ii<i WRS sxsiiiiiied by Dr. (Smt.) P, Baghel (P.W.-8), who ga"e her report Ex,-P,/6 dated 12,11.98, according to which, fhere were no s'gn of sti-uggle on the person of fhe prosecuti~E<, her vagiaa was heslfhy adia.ittm.g teo fingers aad PS/PV exami&ations were noiinal. Accoi'duig to her opinion, she was habitugl to sexiial int€i"'c'ouz'sc sn^i. UTCI'*£ ^,^ex"'c uo sisii of ysc'di't iii"teFco-ui''sCi. Oii fiirtlici" iiivesti^'s.tioii. tlie o.Due'Ilsiit ws.s slso sent for nie^iial sxQixiiuQ.tiou aiid WQ.S exRiiiiii^l bv Or> I^.S. Bli£li''s.dw£i.i{P.TA?,~1D on 12.11.98 at about 4.15 p.m. He gaye his report Ex.-P/lO, accorclnig to xvhich, the appellant was coiapetent to perfoiTa sexual hltercourse. He had also noticed ttie presence of sinegiaa Qii co?'oiiH^l3ii<lis> /Tlis clotlies of tlie Drosecutrix RS undenvear of fhe appeUp^Eit wei~e also seized and were sent for chemical exaaiination but tiie reports were not received, ^ \ Cr.A. No. 1211 of 1999 \ .'•• {31 The conviction of the appeBpjit is based iipon the evidence ofRW.-l Dulari Bai aad P.W.-2 Pooranlal Sahu. (4| Leai'aed counsel for the appeUaiit argued (hat ia the facts ajicl ciiT'uiustaiiccs of tlie cs.sc. flie versioii Qf tl3.-e i3TT5sccuti'dx should be disbeUeved, as she appears to be a consenting pai-tjr. (5| Dulad Bai (P.W.-l) has deposed that in the fateftil night, slie wss sleepnig alou^ x^ith. licr chilcirsu, ss lier liusl)QTicl. lisci soiie out froio. tlie housCu tlie o.uDgllsiit Qpen.s^i the (iooi't !sut€li"'erl. into the house, gagged her nioutli and there'after, coiainitted foix'ible sexual interc'ourse agajnst her, due to which, she started weeping, After her release, she narrated the story to SukK Bai aiid when her husband retunied to the hoiise, she also "an'p^ted tlic story to liioi siid tj.ic'rcafter, tlis report ws-.s loci^cc'l, It GOIG-SS in tlie cross-exainination fhat her husband had gone oiit frc'Di the house 10-15 ininutes prior to fhe time ofincident. She has also adiuitted tliat when the entiy was siade, the Ughts wei~e. on, She had denied the suggestion tiiat the appellant was catled by her for repairs of fan. of her house. She has slso denied tliat when fhe appeUaiit entered into the house, she switchcd off the Hslits, Slic Iis.s also -ci.eiiied tlis.t lisr Iiusbcuid hs.d niet wi.fli tlie aDD€>llsrit sii<i wlieii lie ask'cd to hcr RS to wh.v lie hsd coin.c tli£?c. slie could iiot TeT)lv thc ss.ine ouel 011 tliis. II€'F liusi33ricl stsirteri bc'sttiusf li.ei*-. (6| Pooianlal Sahii (P.W.-2), who is the husbasid of flie prosecutris, has stated fhat when he retlinied to his house at aboilt 9.20 p.ia., he saw ttie app.enant in the gaft'of his house, \ Cr.A.No. 121Iofl99Q ^iE^t-'S^^^. Wheil he went niside the hoiise, he saw that his wife was weepiug and when he asked as to why she is weeping, she replied tlifit th.c sppellaj.it lias coiiiiD.itted- i^ps Rgoirist lier= Hc IIQ.S ddiied tlie su^gestiou io. tlie cross~ex8i£iiiis,tioiifh.o.t liis wife had uot told about the I'ape coinBiitted by tlie appellant. (7t Sint. Sukli Bai has beea examiaed as P.W.-3. She has deposed that when she heaixl soine noise, she came out froui II€T liouse aj'xd. ssiw th.a.t tlie i3H3secuti'ix pjicl lier liusl38ii<i footli wcre tli€:re= 'TIis DicsecuU'ix ws.s wcenio.^, T'lie liusbsuid. of tlics T)yosecutri?c told to lisi* tli.s.t ths Qoncllsxit lis-s couiniittecl I'IS-T)S ?..gaiiist his wife. (8| So far as argiinient regaiduig cousent is concenied, that can be accepted m this case. !t comes ic. fhe exdc'ence of liusbBiici tli3.t HS sooii as lis eiitered in- tlic housc. lis S8W tlist lllS Wlfe i13FOS€CUtl'ix) WS.S WSCDillS, If tlic i3rosecuti'Tix wo-s 3. coiissiitiiis D3.rt^r, tliere ws.s 110 I'^'S.SQII witli I'ICP fc'r wecpiiis sf^sr the siiccessfal iatercourse cominitted by the appeBant, This is uot tlis cs-sc in wliicli. slie w&s seeu iii c-QiD.Droniisiiig. i3ositiori witli tlie s.DDcllaiit l^v soiuebodv clse or her liusbsiici. tliei'cfors. why she wif be weeping, if she was a consentiiig part^' and eveq'thing was done accorduig to her w31. Not only fhis, wli3' slie wfll nan'ate fhe stoiy ofrape to the liusband, when tlie hiisba"d had not asked anythiiig icgaitliag it or even the things relating to tlie presence ofthe appellant. It onfy coines i" fhe eviden.ee of hiisbaad fliat when she was siiupty asked as why she is weepiag, she narrated the stoiy of rape agamst her. Slich h >- ^ I- ^^/ Cr.A.No..l211(rfl9E istei^! tjffiMi sTji<lei'ic& of husbsj'ici is su'DT3Qrtiiis^ tlie syicleiice of tl^€t Drosccutrijc wlio ss-vs tha.t wlien tlie Hi3i3sll3iit wciit out o^f lisr llou£;£s-ftcr lcs.vio.g lispt stie WHS wseuius in flic liousc, It is also silpported b}' version ofP.V/.-S- Snkli Bai, who stated tiiat she slso ss-w tl'ie i3i'x)secuti*ix £U.id. th.c a.i3i3e].l8iit iji tli.c iii^lil^ sjiei tli.'s nroseCtitTU-c WEIS weeDiiis', T'lierefoTs. tlie sj."fi'uiiicnts i^isc<^. l^v leomcci couxisel fcr tlie 3-DU^llsiit tliR.1 tlie Drosscutrix ws.s s^ /->/^-*1Rf='"5"^'H-i1rs' 1~l?l?'t^.7 C*{S'?~t Yt^'t' 1t?1 E?/1r>f'STt'^"?Er? ^Ti. ^fy^'t' f^'F'4'^S=t ^=>T7^r|j=T^rl£:I' fs'F' ^-^.J^^—*^^^-L^^^ ^LL^r Ly ^ ^-•^i-a-L ^.^.•<^F ^ S^'k"- ^£^--'^-^^-^»:»-'-L^{t. -ii-i—i, -S^L-^-a.^.Z, ^-/^. 1^1-^^. t^-"ir ^A^a-'i^-iL^.'\^ Y^- ^_,-^ A tlic urosecutrix s.s weH s-s Jier lius'bsiici. ^^1 So fsj" Q.S ixisd.icstl c.viddicc s^o-d. sfossiicc of sxis.z'k of rssistsilce 011 tlis Rersoii oftlie nrosecutux ai's coiicenieci. it is s. css^ whers the I'H.DC wa.s coiiiniittccl on-tlic cot tiis^t too 'sftsT gaggiiig tlie niouth of prosecutrix using considerable force against her, She is a inanied lady haviiig 2 children, tberefore, in such sitaiatioa absence of Diark of resistance as absence of sisn of i^cciit iiitcrcoui^e woiild lisi'rilv i!iskc BIIY d-ifference. particularty when the victim was oyer powered and eveii she was not iii s. ix)3ition to IUGV€' s.t tlie tliiis of coniiilissioii of forccfal sexual nitercourse on a cot aiid was placed. ia coinpletely liel'oless coii<litioR ^01 J r^_r> rirst f^TiH a'ny n~t"RT?T>"!f^?" •i'?~s t'!"^?1 ii^-'^fjri^f3^"*' r^f^ rT^i-a^^-f-ir^i-i -^»~-~-y * —^^A^,,- ^-L-..A^.- -^i^ U-l-^^. ..A^^.^.J ^.A u.^.-^. J^^A^A^L^A^- ^^ •^.U^.A V A.-^.^-^.-^A and oider of sentence passed by fhe Court below, theie is no aubstance in fhis appeal, the same is accoidingty dismissed, -—^.—-—- — Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge J -7 >