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)
State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh), through Police Station Dondilohara, District
For Appellant : Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Ashutosh Pandey, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
(Arvind Singh Chandel)