!ll?!!"!''"nff' + sn^i^T h'v'h ss^ sTRT^-i' '^f^'ff !*°Ui>-<i|' -ys:s -^i-t{\v\tl, t?^ly41<i. fa'ni'My WTCWaiiich..C^..:&..^.lla.^^ 200 -1- STI^I's^ii^iT •af?g 4il^Id<lft;T ^wv\\ "4 Y&{^ ([^\^( i? aifigiT an^r HIGH COURT OF CHHtATTISGAJtH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APFlEAL N0.509 /2006 Appellant ^ERSUS RESPONDENT Present: Temsai S/o Puranram, Aged about 26 years, Occupation - Agriculture, Gram - Maheshpur Thana - Janjgir, Distt. - Sarguja (CG) State of Chhattisgarh through : PS. Jainagar, Distt. - Sarguja (CG) Miss. Sharmila Sin counsel for the appel|lant. Mr. Arun Sao, GA for 'ghai with Mr. Prasun Goyal, the State/respondent. ORALUUDGMENT (28th Se^tember 2007) Dhirendra Mishra. J This appeal is conviction and order of S.T.No. 237/05 whereby Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja Section376(l) of the IPC an 7 years and pay a fine of Rs.: to undergo addidonal RI for dir^cted against the judgment of serjtence dated 30.6.2006 passed in leajmed I Additional Sessions Judge, h^s convicted the appellant under (I sentenced hira to undergo RI for 'OO/-, in default of payment of fine Dwo months. /( XI-HC-22 SII^I'^iT 311^1 'gf^i + ^g ^ll^ld'il, d'dl+)ll<i. fayi^y WlR'(T^*{|cS 'HT, 200 -i' aii^T's^tiiw ^afta Case of the pro.secudo Tenisai also carue there ;,ai1 house and Sushila, wife ofl °bl<LlId41'l 'iTTR'^f ^ fs'^1 <^^.l< ^T SlPtIIT 3TI^T n, in brief, is that on 1.5.2005 at about 9.30 p.m. the prose|cutrbc went to the house of her nephew Jeetram where Jeetr]am offered her liquor. At that tiine d all the three consunied liquor together. However, Jeetra|m went away towards Jokhan's nephew of the prosecutrK, went towards the field when t|he appellant forcibly raped the prosecutrix. The prosecu Godhnibai, wife of accus|ed, reached there and started quarrelling with her husbajjid, the accused. The report was lodged by the prosecutrfac on| report has been explained gone away to Ambikapur 0^1 the date of incident. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was medi<|;ally examined and her medical examination report is Ex.P/ RojbulaTirkifPW-7). After completion of in^ the Court ofJudicial Magis^ same was received on Additional Sessions Judge. [rbi raised an alarm whereupon 3.5.2005 and delay in lodging the n the FIR that her husband had 10, which has been proved by Dr. :istlrate sdgation charge sheet was filed in First Class, Surajpur and the for trial by the learned b-lansfer Prosecution examine(S 8 witnesses during trial and thereafter, statenient of tljie accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the rut^s ". ^ + XI-HC-22 snt^r^ STT^T sh^i'* 'gfttT :!;:^:'^fe"-.^iA:5' ^s^s^ •ysi -^M\v\t\. y^lyi'i. fawi<Hi< WR?IT sb*11<*i "^T, 200 fq^ff' 2- sn^i ^aiWH)??f circumstances appearing ag^.i pleaded innocence and implicated due to animosity Jokhanram and Pralcash .g^.inst hira in the prosecution case, stjated that he has been falsely The accused also exarained as defence witnesses. Sinfeh Learned trial Court respective parties, con|victed accused/appell&nt as ment|ioned judgment. Learned counsel for perusal of statements of th^ Sushilabai, it is evident that) party. The incident occurre4 whereas report of the same 10.30 p.m. and explanatior| lodging the report is not prosecutrix who has claimec^ very same day. On the other State/respondent supported) Court. <+i<4[^i41Ti Tn"lT^f ^ f^t <^i^.i< ^TsifiOTsn^i after hearing counsel for the and sentenced the in paragraph - 1 of this |the appellant submits that froin prosecutrix herself as also PW-5 the prosecutrfac was a consenting on 1.5.2005 at about 12.00 noon ]was lodged on .3.5.2005 at about present in the FIR for delay in estiblished from the statement of the that she lodged the report on the haijid, learned counsel ' for the impugned judgment of the trial r"N?'.r XI-HC-22 SIlt^I^PI 3nl?i 'gft^ ^cT -•((•iii<-)'4, rixil'y'iii. fci''ii'yi< WH^tl fhweh "H^ 200 •^_ sn^i ^<nw(if?7? I have heard leamed and have perused the impug|-ied jud available on record. Terbsai helr It is not in dispute thaf of incident was 44/48 years[ on the date of incident, sh|i nephew Jeetram where accused Temsai caught thereafter raped her. Sh( intercourse, then wife of the beating her with hand and fii husband, the prosecutrbc lodged the report. In crosst has stated that she went to incident. In paragraph 10 sh^ the house of Jeetram, at tl-t Udaipurhin, Bittu, Bandhan| however,. all of them went| accused conimitted offence denied that she consumed aforesaid persons. PW-2 Lalsai, husband he retumed from Ambikapu when his wife narrated abou •*i'i<I<-i41-i 'w^i'? 1slst <rai<rii< ^srfSgtiailt?! ounsel for the respective parties Igment as also the evidence age of the prosecutrix at the time The prosecuta'ix has stated that had gone to the house of his irjisai was sitting. At that time -, laid her on the ground and had shouted at the time of fe.ecused reached there and started ^ts. In the evening on retum of her nb.rrated the incident to him and isl-examination in paragraph 8 she Ige the report on the next day of has stated that when she went to [a.t tirae Jokhan, Anjani, Urmila, and Sushila were present there, away and only thereafter, the Iwhileshe was alone. She has liquor on that date with the Ibd! |if the prosecutrix, has stated that on the next day of the incident the incident and thereafter, both .1 XI-HC-22 T£('siTqRpr, s?Tilyiiii. fadi'yy 311^1 ^T h^M sf^si shW4i ^ift^ Sa s:S3^ ^sva^ WI-RfTa»t<|ch "m, 200 —s'. sD^i's^nwHlta 4)l^i[<rt41T1 ^lHdT ^ [st<?l ^-^K ^? aiPtlT an^r of them went to lodge the rejiort in the Police Station Jainagar. Jeetram (PW-3) has stated in| paragraph 3 of his statement that there was animosity betwee|n Temsai and Lalsai, husband of the prosecutrfac and Temsai| and Lalsai after consumin? shall send Temsai to jaiF P\S| appellant had come to her prosecutrbi; by hurling filthy did not visit the house of Lalsai liquor used to threaten that he -5 Sushilabai, who was married to Jeetram and residing with oijie Moharsai as his wife at the time of incident, has stated th]at on the date of incident the prosecutrix and accused peifsons were in her house. She had gone fo fetch water and on 1-^er return, she saw that wife of the house and she was abusing the anguage and she was saying as to why she (the prosecutrix) wa^ entangled with her husband and because of her, he (the appetlant) beat her. Thereafter, wife of the appellant took the pro^ appellant also followed thein^ tecutrbc towards a lane and the Having examined the| statements of these witnesses including the statement of |the prosecutrbs, possibility of the prosecutrbc being a consenti^ig party cannot be ruled out; The manner in which the offence is also suggestive of the fact |is alleged to have been committed, |that after other persons who were present at the place of incid|ent i.e. house of Jeetram, left the house and only the two i.e. |±ieprosecutrix and the appellant, fv^ + XI-HC-22 3Il1?iqiT f^TWsn^i ^ftcT -..^=^.;y<.;.?gs' ^:/- ?3I ^ll<!41<?l'tl. '^itWTS. faclKiy wq^irgiiicb '^ 200 v^^ET' i- aii^t'^Rnw^fe were there, the act of sexuall appellant with the prosecutri|x '+W[<-t41-( 41Kfi1''?'fe1^ <F>I^K i? srfSgti aiii^r intercourse was committed by the From the statement ofi the appellant suspected appellant and the prosecuti)ix abusing the prosecutruc usijig incident. Thus, in the con; trial Court was not justified the appellant committed prosecutrix against her wislj] evidence available on recorfl extended benefit of doubt to by the appellant deserves to Sushilabai it is evident that wife of illicit reladonship between the and on that account, she was ig filthy language on the date of ddered opinion of this Court, the |n reaching to the conclusion that sexual intercourse with the jies and instead, on the basis of the trial Court ought to have appellant. The appeal preferred allowed. tfhe tte In the result, the app^ appellant under Section 37f thereon, are set aside. He i He be set at liberty forthwith :al is allowed. Conviction of the >(1) of IPC and sentence passed acquitted of the above charges. f not required in any other case. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge r^