^ BgrcaS^TH.:. HpN.'3LE yiiBH COURT OF M..P. AT JABriLPUR- „. \01^ APPELLAOT (In Jaii ) nESFONuENTt BHIMINAL APPEAL ,. y93 Hansadas, agsd 28 yrs., S/o Madanlal Satnami, R/o ViUage-Dokarbhata, P.S.Chhuikhadan, .- Distt. Raj.nandgaont ,. '"' V/' The Sta-fce of M.P. through the Police Station, Chhuikhadan, Dist-fc. Rajnancigaon. igTCAL^iNgE^ 5rc3^0N^^374{ 2J , 0£_THE , CS..^C._ AGiAIN£.IL_CC,NVlN10a. -SHfcITHMCH RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.07 12:31:45 +0530 w^° HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of 1993 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Hansadas S/o Madanlal Satnami State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma PL for respondent/State. CRIIVIINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 12} OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (01.04.2010) This appeal is directed against thejudgment dated 13.10.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh.in Sessions Trial No. 54/1993 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs. 2000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Case ofthe prosecution in brief is that on 19.10.1992 at about 3 p.m. FIR (Ex. P-3) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-2) aged about 28 years alteging that on that day at about 10 a.m. she was working in the field of the accused/appellant along with Dharamvti and Satwantin Bai and when she was answering the call of nature, accused/appellant came there, threw her on the field and after upturning her sari committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, on hearing her voice, her husband came there to whom she narratedi the entire incident and then the report was lodged. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has| examined 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. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that present appears to be a case of consent because as the husband of the prosecutrix had seen her and the accused/appellant in a compromising position, the report was lodged by her. He submits that evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her husband Jaggu (PW-3) makes it clear that it is a case of consent. He submits that even the medical evidence does not support the case ofthe prosecution. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supporting the judgment submits that prompt FIR and statement of the prosecutrix in which she has narrated the entire incident is good enough to convict the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC. 7. Prosecutrix (PW-2) has stated in evidence that she had gone to work in the field of accused/appellant along with Dharamvati and Satwantin Bai and when they had gone to drink water, accused/appellant came there, asked her to stay in the filed as he was going to take his meals. She has stated that when she was answering the call of nature, accused/appellant came there, caught hold of her arms, removed his cloths and after upturning her sari committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She has stated that in relation the accused/appellant happens to be her uncle and when he was committing the offence, she had abused him. She has stated that while she was being raped, her husband came there and on seeing him the accused/appellant fled away. In cross examination, this witness has stated that at the time of incident, she was beaten by the accused/appellant, her bangles were broken and she had sustained injuries on her back. Jaggu (PW-3), the husband of the prosecutrix has stated that he was passing by the field of the accused/appellant, he heard the voiceof his wife (the prosecutrix) and when he came nearer to the place of incident, he saw the accused/appellant committing sexual intercourse with his wife. According to this witness, the prosecutrix had also informed him about her being subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused/appellant. This witoess has stated that after seeingjthe incident, he had abused his wife saying that she would be thrpwn out of his house. Baisakhu (PW-4) who is a hearsay witnessihas Bll ni stated that he was informed about the incident by the husband ofthe prosecutrix. Dr. T.C. Singhi (PW-5) who has medically examined the accused has stated in his evidence that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Dr. (Smt.) L.D. Jindani (PW-1) who had medically examined the prosecutrix on the same day has stated thatshe did notnotice any injury on her body. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion made in the light of the evidence available on record this Court is of the opinion that had the husband of the prosecutrix not reached the spot and seen the prosecutrix and the appellant in compromising position, report ofthe same might not have been lodged. Conduct of the prosecutrix in not offering her best resistance to the act of the accused/appellant does not make this Court rule out the possibility ofconsent. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 13.10.1993 convicting and sentencing the appellant as above is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Sdf- . PritinkerDiwaker Judge