^- CF0000061054 rw y SSi7 ^y ^x:^ ^ Ht^ •»^.^A A >-•D- IN TEI3 HIGHCCURT OE* I^DHY^. PRADESH AT. J^BJ3..LPUR^ CRI.APPEAL N0» \° "5 'S / 96 &ppeIIant:- i^rT—^ Krishnap^I. Singh . ali«8 Lallu aged 21 years^ son of Kamesh€ar Dutt''singh ^resident o£D±Kit.. Colony (Juarter No<» 513^ Kosanala P.S.Supela Dis-bf. Durg-(MP), Versus^ ReBp><M<3ents- The State of'.M^Fr"" AppiSAI, UNDER SECTZCN 374 (2) QF THS CCCE: Ot GRZMINAL PROCEDURE, •I1 fe«^<:.--,—.-—.—" -1.^——--..-—— —^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 1996 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Krishnapal Singh @ Lallu State of Madhya Pradesh Shri D. K. Vishwakarmacounselfortheappellant. Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL forrespondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J UDG M ENT (11.08.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.05.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 47/1995 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376/511 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfoit four years and pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment offine to furtheF undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 07.10.1994 FIR Ex. P-1| was lodged by the prosecutrix - a minor girl aged about 13 years at the relevant time alleging that on that day at about 12.30 p.m. she was returning from her school and when she had reached near 32 Bungalow, Railway Crossing, the accused/appellant came there, caught hold of heir hand, took her to the nearby bushes, threw her on the field, tried td remove her underwear and after removing his own full pant, took out his private part. It is alleged that when the prosecutrix tried to raise an alarm, the accused/appellant took out the knife and putting the same on her neck asked her not to do so. According to the prosecutrix when she to remove the knife from her neck, an injury on the finger of her left hand was caused on accountof which she started weeping and after hearing her voice, some persons who were working nearby rushed to the spot, caught hold ofthe accused and on being asked by them he told his name as Krishanpal Singh. Thereafter the report Ex. P-1 was lodged. After investigation the challan was filed on 28.10.1994 under sections 376, ^::^':^ •^^/'•^ ^z"^»' ^ &&^!^^^..-^ •' liiS^S^aN%' .1 1 II: "^ 324,511 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. Charges were framed against him by the Court below under Section 324 and 376/511 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 06 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 in paragraph No.1 ofthisjudgment. | 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgmentimpugned. | 6. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and that the statement of the prosecutrix being full of material contradictions and omissions and that too not supported by the medical evidence, cannot be made basis for convicting the accused/appellant under section 376/511 IPC and the trial Court has committed a manifest illegality in doing so. ! 7. • On theother handsupporting the impugned judgment it has beer| submitted by the counsel for the respondent/State that the impugned judgment having been passed after due appreciation of the evidence available on the record is in accordance with law and does not confer any interference in fhis appeal. 1 8. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her Court statement that at the relevant time she was studying in 7th class. On the date of incident she was returning from her school and when she had reached near 32 Bungalow, Railway Crossing, the accused/appellant came there, caught hotd of her hand, took her to the nearby bushes, threw her on the ground and tried to remove her underwear. It is alleged that when the prosecutrix tried to raise an alarm, the accused/appellant tookout the knife and putting the same on her neck asked her not to do so and that «i' '^•~; ^-^,^,,;.^^-'- III ;.;i;-i'^', \ ^ 3- he would leave her after sometime. Thereafter the accused/appellant i^ alleged to have undone the zip of his full pant and taken out his privat^ part. The prosecutrix is said to have snatched the knife held by thes accused/appellant and while doing so she had sustained an injury on th^ finger of her left hand which started bleeding. She has stated thatwhen after biting the hand of the accused she ran towards the road, the people1 working nearby came there and caught hold of him. Thereaftershe was^ taken to the S.A.F. line on a scooter where her mother-had also come.i On being asked by the S.A.F. people she narrated the entire incident to them and at that time her mother was also present there. Thereafter th^ report was lodged. In cross examination also she has not deviated frorrl her statement made in the examination-in-chief. Philisita Minz (PW-2) - mother of the prosecutrix has stated that at the relevant time her daughter (the prosecutrix) was studying in class VII and on the date of incident she had received an information from the Battalion office regarding th^ incident and after reaching there the prosecutrix had narrated her the entire incident. Subsequently, according to this witness, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW-3) has stated that on the date of incident when he was in the Battalion office th^ accused/appellant and the prosecutrix were brought there and he was informed that the accused was trying to commit rape upon the prosecutrix and then he had asked the staff to lodge the report. Dr. V. K. Saw (PW- 4) who had medically examined the prosecutrix has stated in his report (Ex. P-2) that he noticed one incised wound on the index finger of her right hand which was bleeding. P. Mohan Das (PW-5) - an eye witness to the incident has stated that some work was going on in a tank near thQ railway track and at that time one person came there in a nervou^ condition and informed that one boy had taken a girl towards bushes b^ gagging her mouth. Thereafter he saw from the top of the tank that the accused was kneeling down and when he reached there he saw that blood was coming out from the hand of the prosecutrix and then she narrated the entire incident to him. P. S. Chandel (PW-6) the Investigating Officer has supported the case ofthe prosecution. M •liSll';' ;% -Lj- 9. Having thus minutely gone through the material available ori record, the statement of the prosecutrix detailing the manner in which th^ acc'used/appellant had made an attempt to commit rape on her, appear$ to be quite trustworthy and inspires full confidence ofthis Court. Medica( evidence also goes toshow that the prosecutrix had sustained an incised injury on her finger and that there is one eye witness namely P. Mohari Das (PW-5) who has stated that after reaching the spot hesaw that the prosecutrix had sustained the injury on her hand and then he caught holc| ofthe accused/appellant also fortifies the version ofthe prosecutrix. Thusi the conviction of the accused/appellant under section 376/511 IPQ saddled on the accused/appellant appears to be just and proper and doesj notwarrantanydisturbanceinthisappeal. ! 10. So far as sentence imposed on the accused/appellant i$ concerned, counsel for the appellant submits that as the incident had taken place in the year 1994 and by now the accused/appellantand thq prosecutrix must have been leading a settled life elsewhere, itwould be ir| the interest of justice if the jail sentence of four years awarded by th^ Court below is reduced to that of two years. This prayer made on behalf of the appellant does not appear to be unreasonable. [ i 11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of thd impugned judgment is maintained. However, the jailsentence of four years as awarded by the Court below is reduced to that of two years. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge Bff' IffiiBl