^ / ^ KII-189/(Jail) / ^^ C. J. P.R. 11/94/2,000 "CF'0000057936 ^^-.A °i^Zi ^^ ^.r'\ Srf ^s-j^Jg^j APPEAL OF PRISONER AL?n/L!;7 '" " ""'"" ^' ' ...<-.-..—., ^....•••••••.,......-.^<..••rf.•&..,. •••.•..•,A^iciiuc ^. ?3^^^Y^'^^T^^B''^S'c^VASa1aV^a^H^T^V^Vr ¥atheifsQame.^^^^.^...'^^^^..^..^.^.^.,^^.^.^.^^........^^ Residence .. ..•F.^.^^.^..^^^.^.^.^. ^. Age ... ..^. -£_,^-^'-•••••••••-...•— •••••••«• Sentenced to ...^.^.^,^.^.^....<^..^.^......... On...^^.^.^^-..... ........^ ......... Under section ^.^.^..^....^.^^............ byQ.^.y^.^.^,.^.^-^.Tiv^)Vo- •t^rc^T^^ It is explained to the prisoner that if he states or wishes to be represented by legal <^ practitioner theAppellate Court will notproceed with the base for seven days unless t^he legal practitioner appears . If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven ^ days he may not heard at all . If ihe prisoner states that he does not wish to be repre- sented by legal practitioner the court may proceed at once vvith the case and will nct be obliged to give a hearing to any legal practitioner vvho should appear . 1 2 3 4 Date ofiApplication for copy ofjudgement ... :...^&, ^,..^.^ Uate on which copyreceived ............... ...... ... \^..} ^.I|..<Q.^.-..... Date on which Appeal seat ........... .. ..................7)..J..^^;.. .... \^ Whcther the prisoner wishes to be represented or a©.t- Yes / No / No.... ..............^l.L14..<&?............. ...—Name^.^ .^y^<^^^...^..^.^^......... ••••»••• . ^-"^* • ^L." ^»*^»•'i^J^* •••••«•»dl A - • • ^. ^* •^ay •^ • 1^« • fV- o^^B< •^•r^^. •'•^« •. ••••«» •••••<•••••• No.....':5...^^.......j..L-&v.^.. Dated .................. .. 199^'........l^}/..'^./..^.^,'........ ^ Forwarded to the G-HIEF-WMCIAT. MAfnSTRATE.^.^.. ^.^.^.^.^.^.^.^^^^^ ^ togather which a copy of judgement or order passed in the case for favour of trans^' ^ - mission to the proper Appellate Court. ^ c^^ n V . <-^ >T ^ ^ ^°| -3 ^ ^' ^^1<^ B --s^f ^..].%^p"-.: ,^ Date of receipt in... ........ ................... office Date of receipt record to accompany the Memo ofAppeal to ihe Appellate court ^ l IA \ ^. 1\ .l.ir..M \., \., ^ <:,, ^. A & -^ /" No Forwardcd to thc Date of receipt in Appellate Courtj -^OA^py^. 11 •fX5-" ;wdt< t-foe^t €^^' ( P. T. O.;) :x:".^....... ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 967 of 1995 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Rathram State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Ravish Verma counsel for the appellant. Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (06.07.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.06.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 44/1987 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 06.06.1986 FIR Ex. D-2 was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-6) - a married lady aged about 25 years alleging that on 05.06.1986 at about 11.30 a.m. when she was returning after collecting dung, the accused/appellant met her on the way and asked for sexual favour. After she refused for the same he caught hold of her, threw her on the field and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. :-n -^ <^— 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the accused/appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case and that the statement of the prosecutrix being wholly unreliable cannot be accepted. 7. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment counsel for the respondenVState submits that the conviction andsentence awarded to the accused/appellant are strictly in accordance with law and no disturbance with the same is required by this Court. 8. Prosecutrix (PW-6) in her court statement has stated that on the date of incident when she was returning all alone after collecting dung, the accused/appellant who belongs to her village had met her and asked for sexual favour. However, on refusal by her, he caught hold of her, threw her on the field and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She has stated that as her Sari was pulled away by the accused/appellant, she went home wearing blouse and petty-coat only. Thereafter, she narrated the incident to one Dhamhin Bai, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and also her husband. According to this witness, she was subjected to rape for about half an hour as a result bf which her bangles were broken and she sustained injury on her left arm but no injury was caused either on her back or waist. In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that she saw the appellant for the first time when she was being subjected to rape by him and he was not known to her prior thereto. hlowever, when the court had put a question to the prosecutrix repeatedly, she disclosed the accused/appellant belonging to her village. She has stated that from the village relation, father of the appellant happened to be her elder brother-in- law (Jeth) and that she used to visit his house occasionally. The statement of the prosecutrix is duly supported by her husband Shivnandan (PW-7) who has stated that the prosecutrix came to his house weeping and informed him, his mother and sister about her ravishment by the accused/appellant. He has further stated that even in the Panchayat meeting the appellant had admitted the commission of rape on the prosecutrix and on the direction of Panchas the sari of the prosecutrix was brought by the accused/appellant and given to her. In paragraph 3 of his cross-examination this witness has stated that in the Panchayat meeting though the appellant had stated that he was willing to keep the prosecutrix, this witness being her husband did not permit her to go and live with him. /y^\ (^» ^ ^-;.-".-%;. '-• <^,,,- "^ ^y Gaje Lal (PW-5) was present at the time of village Panchayat but has not fully supported the case of the prosecution. He has only stated that in the Panchayat meeting the accused was not present. Seizure witnesses - Paras Ram (PW-1) and Pirtu (PW-3) as also the Panch witness - Mahesh Ram (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution case. Medical examination of the prosecutrix has not been done nor the investigating officer has been examined by the prosecution. 9. Having thus considered the overall material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of prosecutrix and other related witnesses being full of inconsistencies does not inspire confidence of this Court so as to convict the accused/appellant under Section 376 IPC. 10. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Judgment under challenge in this appeal is set aside. Accused/appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Heis reportedly on bail. Bail bonds executed by him stand discharged. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^