HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 119 of 2010
Reserved on : 12.11.2018
Delivered on : 28.11.2018
Chainu Ram Sahu, S/o Munj Ram Sahu, aged about 37 years,
resident of Dabo O.P. Setganga Fasterpur, P.S. Mungeli, District-
State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Mungeli, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
For Appellant : Mr. Ravinder Singh Chhabra Mr.
Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocates.
For State/respondent : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, PL.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 30.01.2010
passed by Second Additional Session Judge (FTC), Mungeli,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 24/2009, wherein
the said court convicted the appellant for commission of
offence under Sections 376 (1) 506 (Part-II) of IPC, 1860
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.
1000/- and R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- respectively
with further default stipulations.
2. In the present case, the prosecutrix is PW-7. According to the
prosecution, on the night of 17.03.2009, the prosecutrix along
with her mother-in-law had approached the appellant for her
treatment to cure problem persist in her stomach. It is alleged
that the appellant taken the prosecutrix nearby field and had
started practicing exorcism, thereafter, the appellant told the
mother-in-law to go away hence, she went to some other
place and thereafter, the appellant committed rape on
prosecutrix. The prosecutrix disclosed the incident on next
morning i.e. on 18.03.2009 and thereafter, matter was
reported on next day i.e. on 19.03.2009. Matter was reported
and investigated and after completion of trial, the trial court
convicted as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:-
(i) There is delay of 2 days in lodging report and the same
has not explained, therefore, case of the prosecution is
(ii) The prosecutrix had not informed the incident to her
mother-in-law while returning from the place of incident. The
whole night she slept at home with her family but she did not
disclose anything to her family members. Her silence till next
morning creates doubt over the prosecution case.
(iii) After rape, she once again had gone to the appellant
house where he had given some more treatment to her. This
conduct of the prosecutrix is highly unnatural against the
(iv) The trial court has ignored material omission and
contradiction which is vital in nature.
(v) The medical examination of the prosecutrix does not
corroborate her testimony and medical examination has lost
its value because the prosecutrix is a married lady and she
spent two nights with her husband after the incident.
(vi) The trial court has erroneously drawn conclusion
regarding the counter report lodged by the appellant. Finding
arrived at by the trial court is liable to be reversed.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the
finding arrived at by the trial court is based on relevant
material placed on record and the same does not warrant any
interference of this Court with invoking jurisdiction of the
5. The prosecutrix (PW-7) deposed that she went to the
appellant for her treatment and during treatment in field, he
asked mother-in-law of the prosecutrix to leave the place and
thereafter, by upturning her sari, has inserted his penis into
her vagina. She further deposed that she objected to the act
of the appellant, but he threatened her to kill. Version of the
prosecutrix (PW-7) is supported by version of mother-in-law
Dropadi Bai (PW-8) who accompanied the prosecutrix for
treatment from the appellant. Again, version of the prosecutrix
is supported by version of husband namely Radheshyam
Sahu (PW-9). All these witnesses have been subjected to
searching cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited in
favour of the defence. Version of the prosecutrix is supported
by version of medical expert- Dr. Sudesh Ratre (PW-5) who
examined the appellant and found him capable to perform
6. True it is that delay of two days in lodging the report against
the appellant but the point is whether the delay is fatal to the
prosecution case. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, it is not an ordinary rape, it is exceptional one. It is a
case of betrayal by the appellant to whom the prosecutrix
trusted for treatment, has committed rape on her.
7. When FIR by a woman is to be lodged with regard to
commission of offence like rape, many questions obviously
grow up for consideration before finally deciding to lodge FIR.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to
participate in plight of victim who has been criminally
assaulted on such a manner. Obviously, the prosecutrix must
have also gone through turmoil. The delay in case of sexual
assault cannot be equated with case involved other offences.
There are several factors in the mind of the prosecutrix before
coming to the police station.
8. In a tradition bound non-permissive society more particularly
in the rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throwout the
prosecution case merely on the ground that there is delay in
lodging FIR. Delay in lodging FIR cannot rest on ritualistic
formulae. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in
the considered view of this Court, delay in the present case is
not fatal to the prosecution.
9. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that case of
the prosecution is fabricated is not sustainable. A woman in a
tradition bound non-permissive society would be extremely
reluctant even to admit that any incident, which is likely to
reflect upon her chastity, had occurred, being conscious of the
danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked
down by the society. Her not informing anyone about the
incident in the circumstances cannot be detract from her
reliability. In normal course of human conduct, a woman would
not like to give publicity to the traumatic experience she had
undergone and would feel terribly embarrassed in relation to
the incident to narrate such incident.
10. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault if inspired confidence,
the conviction can be founded on her testimony alone. It is not
a case where there is any infirmity in the statement of the
prosecutrix who come forward and shown courage. She has
made a humiliating statement against her honour, any
suspicion will aid to her injury, therefore, argument advanced
on behalf of the appellant is not sustainable.
11. It is a case of betrayal by the appellant to whom the
prosecutrix trusted in treatment, therefore, version of the
prosecutrix cannot be seen under cloud. There is no material
contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix which go to
the route of the case. Any minor contradiction which do not go
to the route of the case is insignificant and on the basis of any
minor contradiction, case of the prosecutrix cannot be
doubted with, therefore, argument advanced on behalf of the
appellant is not acceptable.
12. The trial court has rightly evaluated the entire evidence and
this Court has no reason to record contrary finding.
Commission of rape by the appellant is offence punishable
under Section 376 (1) of IPC and threat to kill is offence
punishable under Section 506 (Part-II) of IPC for which the
trial court convicted the appellant and the same is not liable to
be interfered with and conviction of the appellant is hereby
Heard on the point of sentence
13. The trial court awarded jail sentence of 7 years and fine of Rs.
1000/- for commission of offence under Section 376 (1) of
IPC. Looking to the gravity of the offence, it cannot be termed
as harsh, disproportionate or unreasonable and the same is
not liable to be interfered with. The whole sentence part is
also not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the appeal is
liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
14. The appellant is reported to be on jail, therefore, no order for
his arrest etc. is required.
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)