C—78 ~3:53i '^w\wt, ^s-iSiww, ^v'imy. MIM^I *MI<* WI, 200 sn^r iraw (..•yt-j'ii^w) sii^nys K-tt'ia ^sn sn^r »)*ii<ft wiTwafTO3n^i APPELLANT (In JaU.) RESPONDENT .Versus ^R114td1iflRI iTpq^Tf ^1^t' ^^R ^sifinSii^r HIGH COURT OP CIUIAjmSGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.210 of 2005 '\^tjay Kumar Jangam., J9 • fb Venkatrao Jangam, aged about ^ years, Occupation - Motor Cycle lechanic R/o. Mahadeo Ghatpara, J^gdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) Present Mr. Subhash Yadav, couiL^el for Mr. Nccraj Mchta, PaticlL^wyi S|tate of CUiattisgarh Tjhrough : Police Station Kotwaii, J^igdalpiir, Distt. Bastar (CG) fhe appeUant. cr for fhc Slatc/rcspondcnt ORAL JITDGMENT (13*h Dece^nber 2007) Dhlrendra Mlslua, J 'l'liis crmunal appeal is 4irected agaiast the judgment of conviction aad order of seiitenc^ dated 4th Februaiy 2005 passed io. S.T.No.37/04 wherebv leanael First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar, Jagdalpur has convicl^d the appellaat under Section 376(2)(^ ofthe IPC and sentencejd Tiim to iindergo RI for ten yeare, pay a fine ofRs.500/-and in de^ult ofpayinent offiiie to undei^o additional RI for two months. 2. Case of the prosecution, lodged a report on 6. 12.2003 at |in brief, is fhat the prosecutrix ^Bout 18.15 hoi.u-s aUegiug thereia B]nrl!! 8 i 3:S^?qTqT^T, e)rny'16, fs|<y»l«y ffWvW *Htcb Wl, 200 s^sfys Ri-ii* ^Sff STI^T sb+tich an^yr WSK (^\'^<ys) TOIIW^ffiSSII^iT i. lod^in; Bflick fhat 5-6 uionths prior to p,m. appeBaiit Vijay, Babla| house whfle she was aotna took her in their Hero coininitted forcible rape tars^ house. Thereafter, she weat sleeping. When she becaiijie incident to her brofher incident. She got herself ab^ kept her in his honie for fewt However, now he is* refusirfe fhreatens her brofher and hetself ting ofreport on Sunday at about 8,00 and Roshan cauaht hcr near circuit Ito fhe house of Soni advocate. Thev undcr culvert and aB of fheai bv turn aud left her near the circuit t to the house of Soni advocate for pregnant she narrated about fhe about four monfhs after the |>rted bv Dr. Bansal. Accused Roshan davs on the aUurement of inarriaae. to uiarry her aud on uisisting he R4Jesh, Mahlarani 3. After registration of fh| inedical examiiiation to Hina Ahmad (PW-6) examia^d She was also sent for radiol aee and report of fhe radio] been assessed -between 14-1 Bansal Nursiag Hoine of Ex.P/7 were taken iuto pos^ After coinplefcmg investigaticjn appeUant in ffae Court of whereas charge sheet again^t before fhe Juverule Justice ^sard Eix satldn cht*it^t<llT] ^HI^^lf "cf,'fe1^ <R>t^.l')t ^iaiRpTsll^l offence fhe prosecutri.x •was sent for arani Hospital, Jagdalpur where Dr. her and gave her report of Ex.P/4. LOgical examination for assessiag her ogist is Ex.P/9 wherrin her age has 17 years, The treatment papers of ;.P/8 aad declaration of conseat of iession vide seizure ineino of Ex.P/5. charge sheet was filed against the ^hief Judicial Mlaeistrate. Jaedalour the other accused persons was filed •»-.»' 75^ -^WW^, •S^W'W, &WI«y t41*1dl **11* 3n^[?iTR;-fi<+ 'c^IT 3flni?T ^'RN? <* !- an^?r xra^; (4<ti-i«i<ff) •"QT. 200 'TOIIW ^lfW CT^T 3 fhe-prosec(ition 4. Durine trial Thereafter, stateraent of fhe 313 offtieCr.P.C. inwhichhe aeauist him in ftie prosec< false im.plicati.on because of also exaniuied Smt. Toustf However, learned trial Co4rt respective parties convicted| luentioned in paragraph 1 off( examined 11 witnesses tn aU. diccused was recorded under Section denied the circuiustaaces appearini it>n case and pleaded innocence and Ipolidcal rivalry. The appellaat has Zahan as defence zvitness no. 1. after hearfne counsel for fhe and saitenced fhe appeUant as (us judgineat. 5. Learned counsel for aUegations present in the F4 took place sorae 5-6 aionfh^ Bansal, who caused abortion stated fhat she was can-ynig was lodged on 6.12.2003, as| had relationship wifh fhe pregnancy even subsequent argues that fhe explanati.on| tnordinate delay ia lodguig thjf in fhe FIR fhc prosecutrra: ha|s went to fhe houseof Soni ad'ln hoine aad disclosed about fU( her brofb.er when her Court she has stated that ai ttie prega^ncy q>i<iT<n<flTt *iH'?ff 'if.is^ <F»f^$i< i; ajfOT an^ii appeUant subiaits fhat as per j-st In&naation Report, fhe uicident before lodging of fhe report. Dr. \)t fhe prosecutrix on 21.11.2003 has ^jregiiancy of 14 weeks Tffhereas report |such it is clear that fhe prosecutrix s^rson who was responsible for her Ito fhe date of incideut. He furfher ofEered by the prosecution for fhe report, on fhe face of it, is false as a|s claimed fhat after the incident she Irocate and fhereafter returned to her incideat onlv after four nionths to was discovered whereas in fhe fche next dav of the incident she went T5q' "MI<<W<<, (SiTfl+t'Ko, Rfril'y^ an^iys K-)H TPTT-3Fn^TshHI(^ tllNdl *MI<h —••-•—----•---•"-- "---g^ 200 aii^?r "R^ v(<^<f^8t<{tf) TOITWaf??( 311^1 stie Suifita to lodge fhe report in^ poli) recorded. In paragraph 28 coniplain against fhe poU.cc Iiowever, she appnsed Tyhereas Sunita Sineh (PW-1 aftn- learnina about the incj asked ffae prosecutrix as to she reolied that fhe Town would be arrested for doing fhree bovs to potice station hk otherwise he wrould sirrest bovs and fherefore, she retuj fhat eveu when fhe pros< accoinpanied by accused Roj of accused Roshan nainelvl conseat for abortion and dii present appetlant and fhe on 6.12.2003 when the rep< prosecutrix is higUly improlj placed on the solitary testii^i fhe appettant. alllfhe itJTtl 6. On the ofher hand, le; supported itapugned judgniejat \1 cM<)t<n-4li ^N<df T?jfslc3t' <P>1'^|< ^? sifim sii^r :e station but her report was not has stated that though she did not |officers for not recorduig her report, Singh Madam about the same -'?) in paragraph 4 has deposed that [dent from. fhe prosecutrix whea. she |why she did not lodge report earlier, It^spector had fhreatened her that she jfhe dirty job and after caUing aU tiie had asked her to inarrv one of fhem. ftiree, ^rhich was accepted by fhe taed to her hom.e. He further subinits tcutrix weat for abortion she was ihaa, her brofher Raiesh and inofhcr Rukm.aai and fhe prosecutrfat gave not make any allegation aaainst the il|legations were inade for the first tune )rt was lodeed. The conduct of ftie [able and no impUcit relLaace caa be lony of the prosecutrix for convicting alle ned counsel for fhe State/respondent of the trial Court. y^-v^-^-^jajw.r-~^- -z\ 'SvSf "q|<ll(»l<<, yilfly'IS, (slWI'Hy W^vtl **<l«b WI. 200 SII^T yr R;-ti<* TfSff STI^T sH^-IN) av^v •vi^si\^'<ySy^si) 'g^IIWHfttt an^t 57 7. I have heard learncd perused the evidence avaU judgment ofthe trial Court. cjiunsd fer bofh fhe oarties and have ls|ble on record uicluding impugned 8, Conviction of fhe appeUant prosecutrix and PW-2 Snit. Si^nita fHe 9. It is not ia. dispute ft( months of fhe incident and FIR as it reflects froin perus) because of fhe proniise of Roshan. However. ia her prosecutru: has stated fh.at sl| verv next day of ftie uicideilit KotiffaU but her report was admitted fhat she did not of&cials to the higher has further stated fhat she ibi fhe sam.e. On .the ofher stated fh.at fhe prosecutrix along wifh her brother fhe incidaut. which occurred) stated fhat when she asked lodge report earlier, the prosej; eave her fhreat of arrest savidi ndt niUce aufhorities hfend. cgine Seenibnchal tfae <fti<iI^l41Tl *llJ4^T ^'fe1^' <P>1^$R ^ 3ifg*i aii^ii is based on the testunonv of the Singh. liat the reoort was lodged after 5-6 explanation for delay ia^ lodging ihe s^l of fh.e report itseU, is fhat it was inarriage by fhe juverule offender deoosition before the Court the [e had gone to lodge fhe report on fhe ui fhe inorruiig to Police Station recorded. In paragraph 28 she had aay coiuplaiirt against fhe poU.ee for not recording her report. She 4iforined Sunita Singh Madaiu about 1, Smt, Sunita Sinsh (PW-21 has to her in. fhe nionth of Decem.ber Soni and uifomied hcr about 5-6 inonths before and she furfher prosecutrix as to why she did not [;utrb<: repUed fhat fhe Town Inspector f^ fhat she is iavolved ui dirtx job and ^^^S^SBS^S!"•(SfciS*. ^^g^^^^^^^^ a ! 1 ! 3^T -^WW^, »Tf]tl'16, R|<?i|+iy< ^WM (hNI* "^ sii^r v\ K(.fi=t) ^n 3n^?r aiHicf) an^?r V^K (1php^i) wirar ^iftff sn^ii -<0 thrde fhereafter. caUed all tMe fheni, faUing which he wo accepted by tbe boys. te ^iJ inordlinate 10. Apart froin fhe unconMncing explanation foi prosecutrix as also PW-2 8u| is evideat that after her accused Roshan and Babla niarried with accused Roshafa and bofh of fheiu took het abortion. Froiu fhe of consent and indoor casel clear fhat the prosecutrix abortion showtng herself to docuinents bear the Rajesh, accused Roshan Roshan, who has siaged thd prosecutrix. There is no above docuniaits. Thus, exc< before the Court and in thl soine 5-6 months back bv no aav other evidence Tvbic] the crime hi question. Tbe bv wav of cross-exainuunel docunuefats hlas signattires add retfcreace <*l<ii<fl'ii1*i *<N?ff ^'f^ei' <i^^$i< i? aifaH aii^r bovs aad asked her to marrv one of tild arrest aQ. fhe three, which was delav in lodeina fhe FIR and the said ddav, from. statement of the itiita Siiigh, PW-7 Dr. Suki-iti Bansal it ^regnancy was detected, mother of lprom.ised her that fhev shaS. eet her aad she started Uving in fheir house to Dr. Baasal's Nursing Hoiae for of Ex.P/7 & P/8 bdng declaration sheet of Bansal Nursing Hoine, it is siven a declaration of consent for be the wife of Roshan and both these of the prosecutrix, her brother even Rukinam, m.0fher of accused above docuineats as guardian of fhe of the present appeUaat ia the ^pt in fhe deposition of the prosecutrfac FIR fhat she was subjected to rape the three accused oersoas, fhere is connects fhe present appellant with ^ippeUant has takea a specific defence ttie wroseciitrix that niother of the du sii^r ?ir R-iWi w sn^T st>i (^ 7S3t -*]|<||<?)<q, SSTn.M'IS, (qcdiy^i KIMt^l **^1* •W[. 200 3Ilt?T l^; ('^lf^^f) 'renw^ifCTai^r ?. appeUantis a congressworke^- Madam (PW-2), fherefore, he The prosecutrfac has also aditititted Sunita Singh, who accom^to^ed aad is helping her in fhe cas) Smt. Tousif Zahan in his de| political rivab-v.betw^een PW-3 happens to be of&ce bearer o^ amniositv name of fhe appdllant offence. consideratlon 11. Takuig into after 5-6 monfhs of fh.e inci prosecution for fhe sam.e is fhere is no evideiice to show 1 inanner involved ia abortion fhat the prosecutCK: did not the doctor reaardine anv invt question, that there is eviden|i of fhe appeUaut aud Sint. Su| fhe prosecutrix ia pursuing| lodgmg fhe FIR tiU ha- stat| Court, this Court is of the col safe to act upon fhe solitalry conwctu'ig fhe appeUaut in^a ^ cttl^I<rt4tT1 *iH?if Tf^st <pq^§K iTaifira aii^i r and she is opposed to Sunita Sineh has been roped ia fhe above offence. itted fh.at she resides in. the house of her while she had gone to depose The appeUant has also exam.uied "ence to establish fhat fhere is soine ! Sunita Singh and his niofher, vrho a political party and because of fhis has been dragged in the said fhe fact that report was lodged (lent, fhe explanation offered by the tontradictory and uncomanciag, that |hat fhe present appellantw^as ia any |of fhe prosecutrix after four nionths, dlisclose even at fh.e tuae of abortion to [ilvement of the appeUant in crune in |ce of political rivah-y betaffeen niofher ^iita Singh who was actively assisting the iiiatter right froiu the stage of bment was recorded before the trial |usidered opinion fhat it would not be testunonv of the prosecutrix for [enous offence ]ike gang rape. 3^ET '^\'tfw<i, 'ST^WW, Kwwy. HWv\{ **^1* "Wi, 200 sn^?r ini^i^( SII^T ?n R;-f '?TSTT ^R?T sh+t 'roiiwdfBa CT^r •% tt)i4f<n4l*i TTFl^f ^f,1^1[3t <Pn^i< I? SJfiPT 3(I^[ 12, In fhe result, -the appeUant under Section 37i fh.ereon. are set aside. He is set at Ubertv forthwith if ncxf '?! a|ppeal succeeds. Conviction of fhe ^(2)(£l of fhe IPC and sentence passed acquitted of fhe above charee. He be iu aav other case. O^treauired Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge ^ .-^"1 ^ ^'.-.f^t-.:-. /. ••• ^- t.•«<(,