SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arjun Satnami vs The State Of C.G on 4 January, 2018


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

• State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Urla, district-
Raipur (CG)


For Appellant : None appears
For Respondent/State : Ms Tripti Rao, Panel Lawyer


Hon’ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta
Judgment on Board


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


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


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


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


16. In the alleged FIR (Ex.P/1), the incident has been described

with the specific role of the appellant.

cra 1069 of 2001


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


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.


(Sharad Kumar Gupta)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation