NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1069 of 2001
(Arising out of judgment dated 03.05.2001 in Sessions Trial No. 243
of 2000 passed by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh)
• Arjun Satnami, S/o Ganesh Satnami, Aged about 32 years,
Resident of Village Tendua, PS Urla, district- Raipur (CG)
—- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Urla, district-
Raipur (CG)
—-Respondent
——————————————————————————————
For Appellant : None appears
For Respondent/State : Ms Tripti Rao, Panel Lawyer
——————————————————————————————
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta
Judgment on Board
04.01.2018
1. In this Criminal Appeal, the challenge is levied to the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2001 passed by the
Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 243 of
2000 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereafter called to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo RI for
cra 1069 of 2001
2
eight years; to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo RI for six months.
2. It has been categorically admitted by the appellant that he is
father of the prosecutrix and her mother is Dashari Bai. Dashari Bai
left him and performed second marriage with one Nandlal. Suresh is
brother of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix and Suresh were residing with
him in village Tendua. He also performed second marriage. At the
time of the incident, step mother of the prosecutrix had gone to her
matrimonial house for delivery.
3. In brief, the prosecution story is that at the time of the incident,
the prosecutrix was 12 years old. In the year 2000, 4-5 days before
the Ramnavami festival, near about 2 am, the prosecutrix and her
brother- Suresh were sleeping in one room. The appellant came in
their room and asked the prosecutrix to come with him and massage
his hands and legs. When she denied to do so, he lifted her forcibly
and took her in his room. At that time, Suresh woke up. In his room,
the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with the
prosecutrix and threatened for her life if she disclose the incident to
anybody. After 26-27 days, when she went to her maternal uncle-
Manthir Tandon’s place, she disclosed the incident to her
grandmother Ramkuwar Bai. On 05.05.2000 she lodged FIR in
Police Station- Urla against the appellant. After completion of the
investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant. The
trial Court had framed the charge against the appellant under Section
cra 1069 of 2001
3
376 of the IPC. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted
and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.
5. As per report of the Office of the Jail Superintendent, Central
Jail, Bilaspur, dated 17.08.2017, the appellant has been released on
07.08.2006 on completion of sentence.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no direct
evidence against the appellant. The appellant has been falsely
implicated in the case.
7. Learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the appellant
has rightly been convicted and sentenced on the basis of the
evidence available on record.
8. As per the alleged report (Ex.P/6), the appellant was examined
by Dr.AA Saify (PW- 8), who opined that the appellant was capable
to perform sexual intercourse.
9. Dr Usha Gupta (PW-13) had conducted medical examination of
the prosecutrix. She opined in the alleged report (Ex.P/10) that
intercourse was done with the prosecutrix.
10. As per the alleged examination report (Ex.P/9) by Dr. BB
Ahluwalia (PW-11), age of the prosecutrix is between 12-13 years at
the time of the incident.
cra 1069 of 2001
4
11. As per the RFSL report (Ex.P/14), semen and sperm were
found on the slide, Article “A” and underwear, Article “B”.
12. Prosecutrix (PW-1) in her evidence on oath at para- 1 stated
that her step mother had gone to matrimonial home for delivery; she
along with her brother- Suresh were sleeping in the room; at about 2
am, the appellant came there and asked her to come with him for
massage of his hands and legs; when she denied to do so, the
appellant lifted her forcefully and took her to his room. There he
committed rape on her.
13. Suresh (PW-2) in his evidence on oath stated that his father
was pulling the nada and clothes of the prosecutrix.
14. Dashari Bai (PW-3), Manthir Tandon (PW-4) in para- 2, Surtiya
(PW-5) and Ram Kumar Bai (PW-12) in para- 1 have categorically
stated in their evidence that the prosecutrix had told them that the
appellant had committed forceful sexual intercourse with her.
15. As per the alleged seizure Ex.P/3- one underwear of the
prosecutrix, Ex.P/4- two sealed packets and Ex.P/5- one birth and
death registers were seized. According to the photocopy of birth and
death register – Ex.P/15(c), date of birth of the prosecutrix is
27.08.1987.
16. In the alleged FIR (Ex.P/1), the incident has been described
with the specific role of the appellant.
cra 1069 of 2001
5
17. There is no evidence on record on the strength of which it could
be said that Ex.P/1, Ex.P/3, Ex.P/4, Ex.P/5, Ex.P/6, Ex.P/8, Ex.P/9,
Ex.P/10, Ex.P/14, Ex.P/15(c), statements of the prosecutrix (PW-1),
Suresh (PW-2), Dashari Bai (PW-3), Manthir Tandon (PW-4), Surtiya
(PW-5) and Ramkuwar Bai (PW-12) are not normal, simple and
natural.
18. Looking to the above-mentioned circumstances, this Court finds
that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting and
sentencing the appellant as mentioned above.
19. Thus, the appeal being devoid of substance, deserves to be
dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.
20. As the appellant has already been set at liberty on completion of
his sentence, no further order is required.
Sd/-
(Sharad Kumar Gupta)
Judge
padma
