HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILABPUR ‘Q SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI R. L. JHANWAR, J. Criminal Appeai No. 40] 1996 APPEAN'n: LL Jhurukamar Versus RESPONDENT State of MP. (now CG.) Sd/— POST ON g DECEMBER,2‘009 ‘J R.L. Jhanwar‘ Judge LH' 12/ 2009 JUDGMENT \ ’ ‘ V i. ' Sut Indira 'I‘i'ipathi, counsel for the appellant. Sri Pradeep Smgh, Panel Lawyar for the State. (Delivered on ; .12.2009) 1. Tis criminal appeal is dirscted against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11th December, 1995 passed in S.T. 292/9 whereby the learned 3rd Adonal Sesns udg Rur has conted he appellant under Secon 376 of the IPC and No 4 dm s1o Je alp v1c t u ntenced n to undergo R.I. for 5 years. t t e me s llant her 2. I is not in dispute that he prosecutrix and the appellant are Ilau‘ves and resident of the sa village. Prosecution story, in blief, i that on 13.6.1993 at about 7:00 pm. the apge entered the house of the prosecutrix and committed assault on in nnection with some ancestral propty dispute. He forcibly lifted her ad took her inside the room and committed forcibly sexual ntercourse with her. T report f the incident was lodged by the rosecutrix. Qn the basis of her report, FIR EX-7 was registered gt the appellantr"Sp map was prepared. Apparels of the prosecutn'x were sized. Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded The prosecuuix was sent for medical examination. Aner co er é i compleuon of investigation charge sheet was med before the Jud1c1al Magistrate First Class Ganyaband In due course, the case was comimtted to the Court of Sess1ons, Raipur. The learned ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SB: HONBLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANW Aggeal Uls 374 of the Cr.P.c. Appeamnce: h J U D G M E N T L h se hn n i he o p P *2) aains ot Cridinal Apgeal No. 40[ 1996 APP LLANT Jhurukamar, S/o Ghasmkamar aged 26 years, R/o Vxllage Suhagpur, Thana Ghanaband District—Raipur if Versus msgONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh (pow Chhattisgarh) Se$jsions Judge made over the case to Earned 3rd Additional Se$sions Judge, Raipur for trial. . The lealned Addmonal Sess1ons Judge has framed charge under Secuon 376 of the IPC agamst the appellant Chmge waS’ read over anla was exp1amed to the appellant. The appellant abJured the gmlt an‘d pleaded innocence and his defence was that he has been falsely imiplicated in the onence. i I . Th;e learned Additional Sessions Judge has, after evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing the counsel for respective parties, convicted the appellant under Sections 376 of the IPC and ‘u sentenced him as mentioned above. . Learned counsel appearing for the appellant subrgits that due to some earlier dispute regarding ancestral property between the appellant and the family of prosecutrix, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. In the medical report of prosecutn'x, ' no external or internal injury was found on her body. Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, the possibility that the prosecutrix was a consenting party cannot be ignoredt . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment. . I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties at length and also perused the material available on record. . Prosecutrix (P.W.7) has stated that Mangal, elder brother of appellant had come to her house in intoxicatia’h for committing assault. Thereafter, he had returned nom there. In the same night at 9:00 pm. when her husband had gone outside the home, appellant— Jhurukamar entered her house in intoxication and committed assault on her. He dragged her and forcibly made her lie on the floor, torn her- clothes and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her. When the appbllant, after committing the oh‘ence, was fleeing from there, at that time, Ganeshram (P.-W.8) her husband reached there and Caught hold the appellant. Upon which, appellant assaulted her husband with Iahti. One Lakhoram saved her husband horn the appellant. Thereafter, she along with her husband went to police station and lodged the report vide Ex.P-7. She further 2M tated that her petticoat on which blot of semen was present, was § \ sléized by the polict. Her broken bangles wete also seized by the E yolice on the spot. ‘ In her cross—examination, the prosecutn‘x was conhqontcd with her statement, ExzD-l, given before the police. The ‘discxepancy \ which amse was that in her statement, Ex.D—1 she has told about thle time of incident at about 7:00 in the night and in hei‘ Court sitatement stated 9:00 in the night. The pmsecuu‘ix is a rustic woman and themfore, it could not be possible for her to say about egxact time of the incident. In‘her both statements given before the police and Court, she has categorically stated about the incident of r‘ape‘. According to her both statements it is clear that the appellant, in absence of her husband, had committed rape on her. The version of the pmsecutn'x was also corroborated by the statement of her husband Ganeshram (P.W.8), wherein he has stated that at the time of incident he was not in his house. When he returned, saw the appellant heeing nom his house naked. He had caught the appellant and at that time her Wife indicated the appellant and said that the appellant has raped on her. He has further stated that the prosecutrix was weeping and was only worn a petticoat, blood was oozing h‘om her hands. In his cross— examination, Ganesh (P.W.8) has denied the suggestion of deihnce that due to some dispute regarding ancestral property, they have implicated the appellant falsely. He was also confronted with his statement, Ex.D-2 given before the police. However, there was no contradiction between his above two statements regarding the f7 incident of rape committed by the appellant on 111‘s wife. Dr. Snehlata (P.W.10), who examined the prosecutrix on 15.6.1993 at about 10:45, has stated that there was no sign of external or internal injury on the prosecutrix; the prosecutrix had complained about pain on her thigh and breast. The doctor has opined that the opinion about the rape could be given only when it is happened within last 24 hours. From the above evidence, it is clear that the prosecutrix was examined on 15.6.1993, whereas the incident took place on 13.6.1993 and, therefore, possibility that no dennite opinion about intercourse could be given by the doctor, could be ruled out. It is ew-x ' also to be home in mind that the pmsccutrix is man‘icd woman and be;ing a married woman, she was used to sexual intercourse and, th‘erefore, in the above situation, particulai‘ly when the apyellant h d overpowered her, no injury was expected on her private palts. . Corroboration of evidence is not a rule of law, but is a rule of ca‘ution & rule of prudence In case of any iniinm'ty comboration is requned from mdependent soulces Whlle dealmg w1th the necessmr of‘ comboratlon, the Hou’ble Apex Court 1n the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandra akash Kewalchand Jain 1990 1 SCC 550 has held that corroborauon of ev1dence of the prosecutnx 1s ‘not necessaxy u - . In View of the above 1t 1s pertinent to mention here that m this case the accused] appellant 1s relauve of the prosecutnx and the report of the mc1dent was nnmedlately lodged by the prosecumx The versmn of the pmsecutnx was corroborated by her husband Ganeshmm (P.W.8) and promptly lodged FIR, EXP-7. It was argued that due to earlier ancestral property dispute, the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the appellant. However, the defence has not been able to elicit anything as to Why the prosecutrix would falsely implicate the appellant in connection with ancestral property dispute that too on the cost of her chastity. ., Inlthe matter of Kapoor Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh I 2009 Cri.L. J. 1967) this Court has held that being a married woman, the prosecutrix was used to sexual intercourse and therefore, mere absence of any injuries either on the body of the prosecutrix or on her private parts would not render her testimony unreliable, 13. I have gone through the testimony of the prosecutrix with utmost circumspection and found her to be reliable, convincing and ' trustworthy. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the View that the testimony of the prosecutrix is cogent and acceptable. I find no plausible and; justifiable reason to disbelieve and discard her ”testimony. The prosecutrix is a "trustworthy witness and her evidence cannot be bmshed aside merely on technical grounds because the evidence of the prosecuuix hnds full support and corroboration not only n‘om the prompt FIR Ex.P—7 lodged by the prosecuh‘ix but also h‘om the testimony of Ganeshmm (P.W.8). In; this View of the matter the reliance placed by learned counsel for th1e appellant on 1989 1 crimes 424 mar n am: anather Vs. State ofHaryana) does not help the appellant in any manner. . H ving thus considered the rival submissions and atler pefusing the record, I am of the consideted opinion that conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 the IPC and the sentence awarded thereunder by the learned trial Judge is impeccable. There is no illeigality, infirmity or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court in this appeal. . In the result, there is no merit in this appeal. The same is liable to dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/— R.L. Jhanwar Judge .