SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bhuwan Lal vs State 2 Wps/380/2012 Ram Bhajan … on 20 March, 2018

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Appeal No.261 of 1999

Judgment Reserved on : 3.1.2018

Judgment Delivered on : 20.3.2018

Bhuwan Lal, son of Chhannulal Chandrakar, aged about 25 years, resident of
Khertha, P.S. Dondilohara, District Durg, M.P. (now Chhattisgarh)

—- Appellant
versus

State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh), through Police Station Dondilohara, District
Durg
— Respondent
——————————————————————————————————

For Appellant : Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Ashutosh Pandey, Panel Lawyer

——————————————————————————————————

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.12.1998

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod in Sessions Trial

No.190 of 1997 convicting and sentencing the Appellant as under:

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 376(1) of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 7
Indian Penal Code years and fine of Rs.200/-

with default stipulation

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 13.4.1997 at about 4:30

p.m., First Information Report (Ex.P1) was lodged by the

prosecutrix (PW1), aged about 18 years alleging that for the last 3

days she was going in the agricultural field of Chhannual, father of

the Appellant for keeping watch on the crop of paddy. On

13.4.1997 at about 10:00 a.m., the Appellant came to the
2

agricultural field. Having seen her alone there, he deliberately

caught her and caused her to fall down on the bank of the

drainage. When she tried to shout, he gagged her mouth with a

gamchha (a piece of cloth) and thereafter committed rape with her.

He also threatened her of life on being disclosed the incident to

anyone. Her bangles were broken and she suffered injury on her

left ankle. She returned home and told about the incident to her

mother and thereafter she lodged the FIR (Ex.P1). Her medical

examination was done by Dr. Alpana Agrawal (PW3). She gave

her report (Ex.P2) in which she found a fresh scratch of 2 m.m. x 1

m.m. present below the vagina of the prosecutrix. On being

touched on the scratch, blood was oozing out. The prosecutrix

was found to be habitual to sexual intercourse and no definite

opinion could be given regarding recent sexual intercourse with the

prosecutrix. Vide Ex.P6, petticoat of the prosecutrix was seized.

The said petticoat was examined by Dr. Alpana Agrawal (PW3).

She gave her report (Ex.P3) in which she found blood stains and

soil stains on the petticoat. Pieces of broken bangles were seized

from the spot vide Ex.P7. One bangle was seized from the hand of

the prosecutrix vide Ex.P8. The seized articles and the vaginal

slides were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical

examination. FSL Report is Ex.P12 which states that stains of

semen were present on the petticoat of the prosecutrix. On

completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against

the Appellant for offence punishable under Sections 376, 506B,

323 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed against him

under Sections 376, 506(2) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. To rope in the Appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 4
3

witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was also recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the guilt and pleaded

innocence. 2 witnesses have been examined in his defence.

4. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as

mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this

appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that at the

time of occurrence, the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm. A

woman also met the prosecutrix near the place of occurrence after

the occurrence, but she did not disclose her about the incident.

There are material contradictions in the testimony of the

prosecutrix, therefore, her testimony is not reliable. He further

submits that no case is made out against the Appellant and he

deserves to be acquitted.

6. On the contrary, Learned Counsel appearing for the State

supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the record minutely.

8. The prosecutrix (PW1) has stated that brother of the Appellant,

namely, Bhagwat had taken her for keeping watch on the crop in

his agricultural field. At about 10:00 a.m., the Appellant came

there, caught her hand and caused her to fall down. When she

tried to shout, he gagged her mouth with a towel. Thereafter, he

committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. After the incident,

he also threatened her of life on being disclosed the incident to

anyone. Her bangles were broken and her clothes were also got
4

dirty. She returned home and told about the incident to her mother

and thereafter she lodged the FIR (Ex.P1). In paragraph 4, in

examination-in-chief, she has categorically stated that the

Appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her without her

consent. In paragraph 10, she has stated that bleeding had also

taken place from her vagina. In paragraph 11, a suggestion was

put to her that the Appellant had committed sexual intercourse with

her with her own consent, but she denied the suggestion.

9. Dashodabai (PW2), mother of the prosecutrix has stated that when

she returned home, she found the prosecutrix at home and she

was weeping. On being asked, she told her about the incident that

the Appellant had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her in

the agricultural field. She also found that the clothes of the

prosecutrix had got dirty. She has further stated that she went to

the house of the Appellant and told about the incident to the mother

of the Appellant. On this, mother of the Appellant abused the

Appellant. Thereafter, family members of the Appellant came there

and challenged her to take any step. She has remained firm

during her cross-examination.

10. Dr. Alpana Agrawal (PW3) has stated that she examined the

prosecutrix (PW1) on 14.4.1997. She has stated that she gave her

report (Ex.P2) in which she stated that she found a fresh scratch

below the vagina of the prosecutrix and on being touched on the

scratch, blood was oozing out from there. She has further stated

that she had also examined the petticoat of the prosecutrix in

which she had found blood stains on the petticoat (Ex.P3). She

has opined that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse.

No definite opinion could be given regarding recent sexual
5

intercourse with the prosecutrix.

11. Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector M.R. Nayak (PW4) has stated

that he recorded the FIR (Ex.P1) and prepared spot-map (Ex.P5).

From the spot, he seized pieces of broken bangles vide Ex.P7.

Vide Ex.P8, he seized a bangle from the hand of the prosecutrix.

He also seized clothes and vaginal slides of the prosecutrix vide

Ex.P6.

12. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the

prosecutrix (PW1) had gone to the agricultural field of the father of

the Appellant where the Appellant had committed forcible sexual

intercourse with her. Though some minor contradictions are found

in her cross-examination yet the same are not material. Her

testimony is duly corroborated by her mother Dashodabai (PW2).

There is no material contradiction in the testimony of the

prosecutrix. In paragraph 10 of her examination, she has stated

about the bleeding from her vagina which is duly corroborated by

her medical examination report (Ex.P2) as also by the report of the

examination of her petticoat (Ex.P3) in which it is stated that blood

stains were found on the petticoat.

13. It was argued on behalf of the Appellant that as per the medical

examination report (Ex.P2) of the prosecutrix, she is habitual to

sexual intercourse and, therefore, her testimony is not reliable. But,

it has already been observed that the contradictions occurred in

her testimony are not material. She has remained firm during her

cross-examination. There is no reason available on record to

make a false allegation against the Appellant by the prosecutrix.

From the medical evidence also, the case of the prosecutrix is
6

corroborated.

14. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in (2012) 7 SCC 171

[Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)] as under:

“20. It is a settled legal proposition that once the
statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is
accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based
only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no
corroboration   would   be   required   unless   there   are
compelling   reasons   which   necessitate   the   court   for
corroboration   of   her   statement.     Corroboration   of
testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial
reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of
prudence   under   the   given   facts   and   circumstances.
Minor   contradictions   or   insignificant   discrepancies
should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise
reliable prosecution case.  

26. Even in cases where there is some material to
show   that   the   victim   was   habituated   to   sexual
intercourse, no inference of the victim being a woman of
“easy   virtues”   or   a   woman   of   “loose   moral   character”
can be drawn.  Such a woman has a right to protect her
dignity   and cannot   be  subjected  to rape  only   for  that
reason.   She has a right to refuse to submit herself to
sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because she
is   not   a   vulnerable   object   or   prey   for   being   sexually
assaulted by anyone and everyone.   Merely because a
woman   is   of   easy   virtue,   her   evidence   cannot   be
discarded   on   that   ground   alone   rather   it   is   to   be
cautiously appreciated.   (Vide  State of Maharasthra  v.
Madhukar Narayan Mardikar,  (1991) 1 SCC 57,  State
of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 and State
of U.P. v. Pappu, (2005) 3 SCC 594.)”

15. In the light of above discussion, I find that the appeal has no merit.

It is, therefore, dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction

and sentence is affirmed.

16. It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are

cancelled. He shall immediately surrender before the Trial Court or

he shall be taken into custody by the police for his undergoing the
7

remaining part of sentence, if any.

17. Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this

judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel)
JUDGE
Gopal

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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