(^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. fO^ 12,007 $l?lg 'iSW APPELLANT [IN JAIL] of--V O ^.•••i"/}4V--' ^eO"' ^•::'{>^.'--^" ,^<s^y---"" ^••** .^?irt'3t ^0^} 6 RESPONDENTS Fagu Lal Satnami, S/o Manglu Satnami, aged about 40 years, R/o village- Sukhapali, P.S. Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa [C.G.]. State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa [C.G.]. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE |»as ^'t HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2007 APPELLANT ^ Fagu Lal Satnami. VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh. bs.sss'sSfSSsgs ;•^^'^-^'^^i ^' Shri Anand Pandey and Shri Devesh Verma counsel for the appellant. Shri Pravin Das GA for the respondenVState. CRIMINAL APPEAL UlNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (07.11.2009) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 20.6.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa in Sessions Trial No. 14/2007 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment offine to further under rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that a written report Ex. D-1 was lodged by the prpsecutrix (PW-1)on 29.6.2006 alleging that appellant who happens to be her step father committed forcible sexual intercourse with her about two months prior to the said date. It is the further case of the prosecution that immediately after the incident, the prosecutrix disclosed the same to her mother Sukhmat Bai who prevented her from reporting the matter on the pretext that the prosecutrix would be killed by the accused and further that she would be left by him. On the basis ofthis written report FIR Ex. P-15 was registered in Police Station Dabhra District Janjgir Champa _against the appellant and one Hiralal alias Bhondal for the offence punishable under section 376(2) (g) IPC. .=>!^"-.^;^£^^'~- wyssSSS^SSS accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in which he has denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing th§ parties, trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) (g) IPC. As regards co-accused Hiralal alias Bhondal, it is informed by the counsel for the appellant that his trial has not been complete?!. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record incluying thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that a very unnatural report has been lodged by the prosecutrix alleging that the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her for about 2 months and she did not raise any alarm or make any effort to save herself. He further submits that though the first incident of rape was committed in the house of the appellant, no report was lodged by her. According to him, even when the prosecutrix went along with the appellant and her mother to the State of Punjab where also she was subjected to rape by the appellant and co-accused Hiralal alias Bhondal, the prosecutrix had enough opportunity to escape from the clutches of the appellant but no^ such effort was made by her. He further submits thatlhere is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the prosecution has not been in a position to satisfactorily explain the same. He submits that even after her return from Punjab after about two months, no prompt effort was made by the prosecutrix to lodge the FIR. He submits that medical report ofthe prosecutrix also does not support the case of the prosecution, rather Dr. (Smt.) Shashikala Miri (PW-5) has categorically stated in her evidence that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse and no injury whatsoever was found on her person. Lastly, hesubmits that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix at the instance of her father Bhanupratap (PW-3) as his wife i.e. the mother »ii:3'^ •<'"««k '- 1 "i^ ^ ;:^^-^^' ^ . ^^^^•' ^^s^sss^: s^-s.'s?3''-"""-•' -3- of the prosecutrix Sukhmatbai was living with the present appellant as his second wife. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondenVState supports the judgment impugned' and submits that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is just and proper and no interference with the same is called for. He submits that FIR (Ex. P-15) clearly shows that accused has committed forcible sexual intercourse with his step daughter and she was terrified by him to the extent that she could not gather courage to lodge the report nor could she raise any algrm there against. He submits that it is not only once that the.prose^utrix was ravished but she was ravished on three-four occasions.ih his own house. He further submits that even in Punjab she was raped by the appellant and co-accused Hiralal alias Bhondal, and after return from Punjab the prosecutrix had requested one Sahni Banjare (PW-8) to inform her father to meet her immediately and when she finally met him, the report was lodged. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Perusal of material available on record clearly shows that the prosecutrix has elaborately described the first incident when she was ravished by her step father. She has further stated that despite her protest, she was being subjected to rape by him and on account of fear she did not disclose the matter to anyone. In paragraph 2 of her deposition she has stated that after the first day of incident about 3-4 times again she was subjected to rape by the appellant and when she used to protest, the appellant did not acceded to the same and continued subjecting her to forcible sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix has further stated that after some time she along with her mother and the accused went to Punjab in search of livelihood where they stayed for about two months and during this period also she was subjected to rape by the appellant. It is stated that in _Punjab, co-accused Hiralal alias Bhondal and the appellant once committed rape on her turn by turn. In her cross examination also Ihe prosecutrix has stood firm in her stand that she was raped by the >i""5Ma<fc, !fe '*";.t. fts»» "^. '] f^i-a'I-'SBa. 1 i '''l^lSjti, E 'tj"' •".-.j.-'-'.-S^S^'^ •:'^1 -4- appellant and the co-accused namely Hiralal alias Bhondal, though various suggestions were put to her by the defence. Statement of the prosecutrix is duly supported by Moharbai (PW-2) who has categorically stated in her statement that she was told by the prosecutrix about her having been raped by the appellant. Similarly father of the prosecutrix namely Bhanupratap (PW-3) has also supported the statement of the prosecutrix and denied the suggestion of lodging a false report on the ground that his wife is living with the appellant^ 10. The word "father"i;if taken mythologically has the ramifications like the sky which embraces the whole universe in its bosom. If such a sacred figure assumes the figure of wolf, the unfortunate daughters will continue to be exposed as lamb. For such fathers flooded with animalism, the arm of law well equipped with legal sword has to be and must be used. 11. Having come across the entire voluminous record, the act of the accused does not prompt this Court to show any sympathy. The Court below has not gone wrong in recording his sentiments in the form of conviction of the accused. This Court has no hesitation to affix the seal of approval to the thoughtful judgment of the trial Court. 12. In the result, the appeal being withoyt any substance is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. Pritmker Diwakar Judge 's--^ a llilliliM