+ XI-HC-22 ^T^T^T Rlich 3^T ^RW^Tf^T -3-sr ^||^|d<Lt. ^'al^<i<o, [^<y<i<iy siri^r ^ra? ^.C^.A.'.M.?..:.^.^ '^ 200 NIH^II 5b*4ich 'I^^ST' ^TI^T'^TT^R Trf^T DHIREN&RA APPELLANT RESPOHDEHT paatosh Yadav, S/'o Bao.shi Yadav, aged p5 }^ears, R/o Bhurka, P.S. Nayapara, pistt. Raipur (CG) Vs ptate of Chnatfcisgarii, thix5ugh P,S. pobra Navapm'a, Distt. P.aipur (CG) 4-10-2007 Shri C.K. Sahu, Advoca|i Smt. Madhuiiislia Suig|i 2, This criimnal appeal coiiviction aiid order of sentt S.T. No. 11/2QQ3 whercby Ralpiir under Scheduled Ca^t Atrocities) Act ( for short h|i convicted tlie appellaat undel to undergo R.I. for 10 years payment of fiiie to farUier un<] 3. Case ofthe prosecutio^ years fodged report againsf on 23-11-2002 at about 9.30 eow dung ak>ng with her you|a field at about'S.OO m the dark complexSDn caine near caught iier cBest, gagged hi} sister Biioli and Buter fled appeilant forcibly comniitted <=hl^fd1'flrl 'RTH^ff ^ Fs^l <pil^l< '^'3rf;<R3:n^T MJSHRA.J. 4ad [|te lor tlie appeUaD.t, ' i, paiiel Lawyer for Uie respondent. |is directed agaiiist tlie judgment of mce dated l-7-2004 passed in Special lleajiiecl Special Judge, Special Court, |tes aiid Sclieduled Tribes (Preveutiou of 3reiiiafter refeiTed to as tlie Act) has ^ Sectioii 376(1) ofi.P.C. aiid sentenced with fme Qt Rs. 1000/-, m default of lergo R.i. for two inonths. in. briefis tliat the prosecutii^ aged 12 ^nknown pe.rson ui poUce station RajiBi RM, that when ^he had gone to collect sister BhoU and Butar towards the noon aboy Qf20 years, leaa. and thiis, Ijier, started taikiilg to Iier aiid thereafter ^ moutli^ After seeirig m^ her yoiingir tlierei slibuting 'fMieve fhieve' and tl|| Jrape wifh her as a resutt ofwi^cii bloQd you|D:ger afteli' Jl.er, li(J)m + XI-HC-22 ^n^T^r f^TW 371^?T ^Rw^iftn ^^r ^i<4td1ll, ^Ti1<i<i<o, Ioi<ni^y srri^r 'q^? ^ ^IHdl 9b^l<=h"""""""""""""""<""<"^F^ 200 I^^T" ^z^ ^TT^T ^RTTW ^Tf^f start.eci oozuis trom. lier Bhuwneshwar aiid Sautoo w{ chased him, however he maiia^ed 4. Diuiiig io.vestigation, t} examiaatiDD: to GoveniBient Puspa Guni (P.W. 14) exainial After aiTest of the accused, presence of Executive Magistr| prosectitnx icienmieci tlie apl charge slieet was filed 111 the aiid the^saBie was receivedl com.iiiitt.al, 5. Duriiig trial, 19 witnesl aad thereafter statement of stated that he is agecl about 2|3 was workuig m. tlie field of I^ him: to the prosecutrix. He iinplicated. He also examuied| Special Court after heariiig tht sentenceci tlie appeUaat as 6, Leanied couusel for Uit the' idenfiiicatiDU of the accus^ wag argu:ed Uiat the prosecutitix befbre aiid Uie report agajiist however, after arrcstuig the i| cbi^<n^r1i ^i^ciT ^ f^^1 <psi^i< '^^cR 371^1 Drivate part., Heaniig her shouts, h.0 were grazuig ffaeir cattte nearby, fo flee fro3ii thei^. tie prosecutrix was sent for medical Hospital, Gobra Nawapara where Dr. 3d her aad gave her report ofEx, P-13, test iclentification was conducted in rfe vide document of Ex, P-4 where the ?eUaiit, Atter completiiig nivestigation ^ourt ofJudicial Magistrate Ftrst Class by Uie ieameci ^peciai Uourt alter t|ie f^f3 $es were exaniuieci by tiie proseczition accused was recoided ia which he years aiid lie is nianied and while he hwari, tlie poUce took him. aiid showu is inuocenf aad he has been falsely ^Dwarika (D.W. 1) in his deience. The s counsei tor ttie parties, couvicted aaci iii para I offhe judgmeut appellaiit has maiiily stressed upon ;d. ReferriiigtofheF.i.R. of Ex. P-3, it ix did not recogn|ize|tlie appellairt siiic^ liiilaentified^ p|rson was k)dge(I? ippellarit, he was pibduced before fhe Bielntioued •a + XI-HC-22 ^Tr^T-^T f^TRT 3T1^?T 9^^\^ ^Tf^T ~s^ ^ww^ ^Ti1<i4i<5, fa<ni^y SIT^T 'q^? ^IH^I 5b^|ch""*"""<""*"*<""**""*<****^F^ 200 'IN^T' _-_^ ^TT^T "^TT^R 'Hf^r proseciitrix and onlv ther conducted by the Execzitive| identification, flie charge she| is no reUable evidence to este) wtfli me prosecutrix, ^ 7. On tlie oUier haiid^ the iinpugned judgnient. 8. Coiivicfk)n of the app^ prosecutrix (P.W. 2), Ku. Bh^ Gaiigabai, her motlier, P.W. The prosecutrix (P.W, 2) in date of uicideut, she had goi| at 12.00 noon when accused! Blioli aiid Butar Ued from Ui^ fell her on the ground aiid c^ her. Wlien she raised alarHi accused, however fne accus^ sfatecl tliat tlie accused was showu to her and she idel identified him at Navapara| cieteuce m. lier cross-examuij or^reason forlalsely iBiplicat3{[ 9.; P.W. 8: Ku. Bholi h^ prosecutrix and; Butar iiaM) accused came aad caught <=M^l(<rt<fl'l 'WT^Tf "^ 'fe^l' Tf^5R ^ <yrf;<TH 3:n^r bafter test identification paiude was Magistrate aiict on tlie basis of such ^t was filecl agabist the appeUaiit. Tiiere bHsh that Uie appellaiit committed rape leatned counsei Itbr the State has supported fcUant is based ori the statement of tlie \>ii alias Sonlmmari (P.w. 8) aad P.W. 4 |t0 Santoshaad P.W. 16 Bhuwneshwar. |her statement has cteposed mat ou the ^e t.o collect cow dung towards field area caoie in the field, caught her, her sister |re slioutuig ''thieve tiiieve5. The appeUaiit ^mmitted rape with her after zuidressuig [, Saiitosh came there and chased tlie d fled towards Bhurka. She has fzirtlier subsequently brought by the police aiid [itififid the accused. Subsequentiy she also, There is no suggestion by Uffi ition tiiat tliere is some previous enniity tlie appeUaiit ia tlie present case. J s also stated thM^^^s^ with t3|e gone to collectj c<^ dung wherc t3|e prosecutrix, tliei^after they fted fix)m .13 tiie r + XI-HC-22 ^T^T^T f<-li<=b 3TI^T ^RW^ffTT 'L.-^" 's-.. ^^T ^tt^id^. ^-al^^to. [®i<yii<Hli< 3TT^T XRi^ *<IH^I 5b^|ch """"""""'^ 200 'fN^sy' 3?n^r'^n^ Trf^n there raisuig alarm and nar^ prosecutrix who is her uncle. accused did nbt coiiie on the ttitored by iier uncle.in ffai detailed description ofthe on at tlie time of uicident him. P.W 10 Saiitosh who N iigured as eye-witness, h^ prosecutrix aiid has gtate< retumuig siioiituig ironi Uie tiiieve has caught fhe prosej field where he saw a person He tried fo chase him but he| P.W. 16 Bhuwnesliwar has prosecutrD< ui material parti<| shouts of the prosecrHrix wli< saw th.at she was weepiiig a^ He has been cross-exajiiint description of Uie person wti^ Uie versiou given by fhis.witt: version ? of Uie prdsecutrix^ cprTpborate<i||ium the lady ^| exainio^d Uie prpsecutrix aj:||j Uiat on exmiiniation, she ruptured and bfood was <))' cni^I<rt<4l"i +ii^<^i ^ Fs^l ipai^K ^'^Tf^FT ^3TT^[ 1'ated tlie uicicient to tlie father of tlie |She has denied ti.ie suggestion tliat tlie Iplace ofmcident aacl Uiat she has been F.l.R. also the prosecutrix has given offencler includmg clotlies he was puttmg a4td has clainied that she would identi^7 an iiidependent witness aad has been .^.s coiToborated the version of tlie tliat smaU girls froni viilage were llield side aiid Uiey ioibrmed that sonie b-atrix whereupou he went towards the peeiiig towards Borkha from a distaiice. maiiaged to flee. He could uot see hiBi. lalso coiToborated the statemeut of the ^ulars and has slated fhat he heard Uie was cryuig aiicl wlien he went there, he afcd she stated Uiat aboy has raped her. :d by the State with respect to Uife fled iix)m the place after rape, however ?ittiess ia chief materiaUy corroborates Uie frhe version of l]ie|prosecutrix is al^o >ctor P,W. 14 Dr.1 Pxishpa Guru who h^ gave report 6f ^x, 'P-15 aad has stat^ tD|uncl tiiat tiymeu^of fhe prosecutrix was >ozuig from her vagiiia aiid she was :^I't a. + XI-HC-22 ^ ^TT^T^T [<4i<=b 3n^?T 9b^ict) ^rfin .N. n- ^"^r ^i<4id1Li, ^TiT^^Ko, fa^i^iy SIT^T 'tRT^ ^JH^tl 9h^ich """""""<<*'"***'?r^ 200 ^re^sT' -? W^T '^TT^R '^rf^T -CM^I<n<fl"i ^H<^T ^ Fs^l iFsi^K ^3Tf^FT3Tr^T complaiiiiiig paiii on touchu^g the vagiiia. So far as flie aTg-ament of me coimsel for the appellabt Uiat the report was lodged agaiDist unidentiiied person, tlie tes Executtve Magistrate has therefbre, pn the basis ot d<|)c Mentification of the a^cused by the j prosecutnx and P.W. 8 th' conceraecl, there ; is no ei prosecutrix prher parents h|aci aay eumin7 towaTds tlie appeliaiit to falsely HnpMcate the appeUa|iit ^^u^ above ciiBie. The proseciitrix has csitegoricaliy stated, tii|it after tlie iacident when Uie poUce hKjughf fhe accused before tlie pei^etrator of the offeuce) Court. Her statement is ^ duN at the tiBie of nicident when stated tlial the accTised caiilj opiiiion fhat ^identity of Uie establislied beyond reason^ preferred by ^me appellaiit t| disinissed aiid if is ajccoi^.iii^ly dismissed. identmcation parade coiidticted by the |been disbetieved by tlie Court aad appeUaiit could not be couvicted is idence available on record that the her, siie iiaiuediately identiliecl him as mid Uiereaft.er she identilied him. in the coiToborated by Bholi who was preseiit iie accused caBie tliere aj.id she has also tliere aiicl caught tlie prosecutrix aiid thereafter -both the sisters U€|d fruHi there slioiituig, 10. Oii tlie basis of the aforesaid disctission, this Court is of the [accused as perpetrator of fhe ofieuce is k doiibt lu fhe resuit, the appeal teiiig wilhout substaiice, deser^es to Be Sd/- Dhu'endra Mishra Judge •II % [^i: