t^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR APPELLANT/: (Accused) (!n Jail) RESPONDENT: Criminal Appeal No.767 of 1993 Chintaram Son of Kesru Satnami, aged about 30 years, resident of Village Kureta Bhanta, Police Outpost Jevra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaon, Distt. Durg, M.P. (now C.G.) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) through Station House" Officer, Police Station Supela, Tahsil and Distt. Durg, M.P. (nowC.G.) {Criminal appeal underSection 374 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma^J ORALJUDGMENT (22-6-2010) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 10-5-1993 passed by the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No.210/92, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Sections 450 & 376 (2) (g) of the I.P.C., sentenced him to undergo R.l. for three years & ten years, respectively. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any evidence of identification, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant and thereby committed illegality. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the fateful night of 13-2-92 at about 11.30 p.m. when victims PW-4 (name not mentioned) & PW-5 (name not mentioned) were sleeping in their house and their father Bisam (PW-6) was also present in the house, 3-4 persons came to their house, they knocked the door and took out their father. Four persons along with the appellant herein committed sexual intercourse with victims PW-4 & PW-5 against their will and consent, and they fled away frbm the spot. Out of the four persons, the victims identified the appellant herein who is a rickshaw puller and used to purchase vegetables from the e- 'vegetable garden. Second day the F.I.R. Ex.P-10 was lodged by FW-il.. The victimswere sent for medical examination and they were examined by Dr. (Srnt.) Chaya Tiwari (PW-2) vide Exs.P-4 & P-5. Their undergarments were seized vide Exs.P-2 & P-3. Undergarments ofthe accused/appellant were also seized vide Ex.P-1. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-16. Statements of the witnesses were reeorded underSection 161 ofthe Cr.P.C. 4. Aftgr ttompletion of investigaticin, charge sheet was filed bgfore Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, who iliturn, cornmitted the casetolheCourtof Sessions, Durg, fromwhere learneyAdditiQnalSessions Judg&reeeived the case on transferfortrial. 5. Iri Qrdertd prove the guiltoftheappellant,theprosecutionhas,examtned as miahy as six witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 iof the Cr.P.C. in which Se denied the circurpstances appSa'rin^ against him, pleaded innocence and false implicatiQnl 6. After affording opportynity of hearii^; to th®parties, leamed Md SessionsJydge®Qnwi(^d®serateriG|dtth©ia^eliant^safQrem |i7.^fhavSheaii^;learnied'counsel-W .recorcloffhetFial-Court. - " : 8; Learned counsel fbrtheappellant vehementlyargued that the ap^llartf herein is not disputing the commission of offence, but the appellanti is disputing the evidenGe relating t6 commission of offehce by Niin; Learned counselfurther argued that as perfhe evidence of PVV-a, PW-5 & Bisam (PW-6), 7-8 peFsons entered in the house of the victirns Shd have committed rape with the two vietims, but on account [Of cortipiete darkness, both the; vietims were not m au positicin t0 iclentify fHef perjsCT who has committed rape with]tlnsm sthG|?jh absenee ;iden1:ffi oonviction & sentenees of ttie a||fpellant aFe^riot systtinable uhae[l[ilie law. ••• , : : . \ : ; ' : h:/:::'. •;. :: . - ::J; 9. On the other hahd, learned ^^tg GGiunggl vehemently Gppic^ [tlle appeal and subrnitted that sIatel-nenfslofin&viEtims RW-4 &;E'Vy-5j fhe promptlylloag^ FJ.R. Ex;P^^Q^aE^ supcient'fQr drawillg^n^ W '•.:•::••^V' • .'•; ;:.,':;:-i1:^ Ihaf the appellarrtlis^tfte '|aersc>n||sh^wa^f|3resent^ . 'acGused jSers&ns, ;and has ®c)i'fiti|iitte^3:'gSi-ig;;i^|3®|gfigr'l{SiNn|ij§|i@^; •^shbuS&^ trespass;' !i:i|i'^c>rder^f&!@c|©rr!||JiiJjt|iiil|0fl^j^ei:|[:)urtis,l"fa, | Ji.3l'T ••<'.:^i •].; 311 ^ -•i^i"ti. I.S<®!1: •^s,' ^ wws ':li::iffll!! lll ^i" ,^r. ^i^"-? <3!R;lmK| f;'~'. wm in1pri|@nnT^ptfQr|ife.?TheMa|©ou|E^ and Senf§hG%| •C tha^ppellaRtintheafSresai^m^ • . ; ^ lOilntffdertoappreciatetheargumentsaavahcedonbehal hSveexarninecltlT®evidenGeavailableohrecord. ; :l'"ii!'!i! il-ilit m '"V w- 11 ;12 In the present case, virtually, the aRpellant has disputed tlie factum of commission of offence by him and has not substantially disputed thie^ GOmmission of Qffehce with the yiGtims. In other words,?ttTe evidejiGe ofs victims PW-4 & PW-5 and tBeir father Bisam (PW-6) along witti fhes evidence of Dr. (Smt.) Chaya Tiwari (PW-2) are sufficient;f@)r dr?wing|. inference that both the victims w^re aceustomed to sexual int§rcourse?|l and more tharrafte person entered in the hoyse of the viGtims at nigMp and committedsexual intercauree with themwithouttMeirwill&cohlE^rft^^^^ Th6 factum 61i Gbrnmission of offence is also supportecl by the F.I.F^ Ex.P-10 lodgedtiy PW-4. • ; • ] ® ! ' . :.:" : :'':' !' 'A"' vAs regarcls csmplicity of the appellant ih the eril'ne in qyestioin,.iViGtii"ffi^ ^No.1 PVV-^ha;ssiSReGifi®al|yd|6|^?iGl|tlrat|fqyr,.SersGns :^;,-.:;jl):i®;;;S;:iilNI!^ll®H "initeR|®i.{f|^:?S|giSj^|^ii^|^]|^||B|1^1^j|aKgt^ :.s'^' '-; i'^^;!'^;^?. G(|^itifl^|^g||i|a!gt@B)i|i'|^:E|gg|vtjBillffi811iS"BM?K SX :^iss\" l:eiji^1^|se||ilU|jt|ig|j»s^|gM|||F:1|j(|^si)^^^ .::»ry;?:'.!;:a'%SK^us: M;®fit'K ^^,;,:._-;;:.,^rai' s';^Kj?r;;;::i']ne;iw^U! :ti^lHe'F>@liG^]%|iti®F[;::anH^|o(|lig|^|-^(3rt^i9a;^ ciarroborated by^tfre evidence^oTiyjc^ilT)^^ ;3.i':iial3l (PVV-6); As per tKeir evidence, they were residing in^tfte've9etalSI®|g 'gai'denofiChEindrakar.: : . . 1;'-' : '• ',' -: .:'^:: j^\'|,^:?; tir.:1^lKl^ 13 ^Victim No.1 PW^ hasspeGifieally depc^edin her eviderese thaw^ eight persons, she was in a' ppsition to idehfify one person i^e. -t g^ appetlant herein who was riG|<shaw puller and ysed fovisittheyeigefaBle garden for pyrchasing vegetables. SMeihas mentiohed tHe ^ :m .ii.a iEli :iglias Bi ^^'^^ appellant in ^fhe F.I.R. Ex.F>-10, in In para £1 of hec ®1"C)SS- examinatiori she has admittect^atan^countQfdarkni^lsRelWasFm^ iinj'a position tolid^rititytrteip^rsonlw^^^ ievSn exeluainglhe otherp]gFscih.^4ffwe:neadpOT^ • III ^e^i1:H|faer^j^a^si?ie^tia^sig^fttHi^l|e('aFp^llartti^e;r^j^.a^ B||jHC)|^ioN|e:^ictinliS^n9|sjs|i|JtJEte8^iiN:|aNsf8n(^^ •8i|thiS';witriess:,:.:paras^;6,'&^8j|'of''^|r:;Cjoss-e)amir!iati®:.^^ lcjEiged: by this witpess,,6nl^]|^esumpl|ii:in .^ffl!i.yi®:i.'.I,i3if!:''::r,.i^l;.JB.&:jMl:S:;i,B^ ^l%''tM^G)ther!;uniaehtifieGl^iRej|sSriiSi'tH©rappell^l^ :|ret|j|^ij iia 81 :^;j '^ifj fli 81s ^M !B lil IMM 1611! jia Soma t.i 1 14.After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant. Coflviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of PW-4 and the F.I.R. lodged by her, which are sufficient for drawing inference that gang rape has been committed upon victim PW-4 and that the appellant herein has also committed gang rape after committing criminal house trespass. Conviction of the appellant is based on sustainable and credible evidence. On close scrutiny of the evidence, 1 do not find any illegality in the judgment impugned. 15.Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall immediately surrender before the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, for serving remaining sentences imposed upon him in Sessions Trial No.210/92. Sd/-.. • " T.P.Sharma Judge