1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2011

Chhotu @ Naresh @ Umesh S/o. Nandu Yadav, aged
about 21 years, Occupation Labourer R/o. Village Station
Maroda, Police Station Navai, Distt. Durg (CG)
—- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Navai, Distt.
Durg (CG)
—- Respondent
—————————————————————————————-

For the appellant :Shri Tarun Dansena, Advocate
For the respondent/State: Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer

—————————————————————————————-

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Judgment On Board
10.12.2018.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

31.12.2010 passed by Special Judge under the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 ( for short ‘the Act 1989’) Durg (CG) in Special Session Trial

No.35/2009 wherein the said Court convicted the appellant for

commission of offence under Sections 376(1) 342 of the Indian

Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for seven years and to pay fine of 500/-; RI for six months with

default stipulations.

2. In the present case, prosecutrix is PW-1. As per the

prosecution case, prosecutrix along with her parents residing at

Sangam Chowk, Maroda which is within the jurisdiction of Police

Station Navai, Distt. Durg. On the date of incident i.e. 29.6.2009
2

prosecutrix and her younger brother namely Durgesh were playing

hide and seek at 5.00 pm. When the prosecutrix was hiding in a

room, the appellant came there, caught hold the prosecutrix and

dragged her towards water tank. When the brother of the

prosecutrix came there, the appellant threatened him and

thereafter the appellant took the prosecutrix to vacant house of

Govind Dewangan and committed rape on her. Thereafter he

forcibly confined the prosecutrix till 12.00 night. The matter was

reported and investigated, and after completion of the trial, the

appellant has been convicted as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are

number of contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of

the prosecution witnesses and there was substantial development

in their statement but the trial Court overlooked the same.

Version of the prosecutrix and her brother is also not natural. No

external or internal injury was found on the person of the

prosecutrix, no FSL report is available on record, therefore, finding

arrived at by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting

the impugned judgment would submit that the finding of the trial

Court is based on proper marshaling of the evidence and the

same is not liable to be interfered while invoking the jurisdiction of

the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

3

6. Prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed that on the date of incident

about 5.00 in the evening she along with her brother were playing

the game of hide and seek, at that time, the appellant came there,

caught hold the prosecutrix and dragged her to a house near

water tank and committed rape with her. She further deposed that

the appellant confined her in the said room up to late night.

Version of this witness is supported by version of Durgesh (PW-2)

in whose presence the appellant taken the prosecutrix. Again it is

supported by the version of Neelam Kumar Banjare (PW-3) who is

the father of the prosecutrix to whom the prosecutrix informed

about the incident. Again it is supported by the version of Dr. IK

Wadhwani (PW-7) who conducted the examination of the

appellant and found him capable to do intercourse. All these

witnesses have been subjected to searching cross-examination,

but nothing could be elicited in favour of the appellant. Version of

these witnesses again supported by the FIR (Ex-P/1) which was

lodged on the next date of incident in which the name of the

appellant was mentioned as culprit and the act of rape is

mentioned.

7. The statement of the prosecutrix is quite natural, inspire

confidence and merits acceptance. In the traditional non-

permissive bounds of society of India, no girl or woman of self

respect and dignity would depose falsely implicating somebody of

ravishing her chastity by sacrificing and jeopardizing her future

prospect. Evidence of the prosecutrix to be followed at par with
4

an injured witness and when her evidence is inspiring confidence,

no corroboration is necessary.

8. It is true that there is delay of one day in lodging the report

at Police Station. Where report of rape is to be lodged many

questions would obviously crop up for consideration before one

finally decides to lodge the FIR. It is difficult to appreciate the

plight of victim who has been criminally assaulted in such a

manner. Obviously prosecutrix must have also gone through

great turmoil and only after giving it a serious thought, must have

decided to lodge the FIR. Precisely this appears to be the

reasons for delayed FIR. The delay in a case of sexual assault,

cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There

are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and

her family members before coming to the Police Station to lodge a

complaint. In a tradition bound society prevalent in India, more

particularly, rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the

prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in

lodging the FIR.

9. After reassessing the evidence, this Court has no reason to

hold that the appellant has been falsely implicated. There is no

reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix and other

witnesses.

10. The trial Court has evaluated the evidence elaborately and

this Court has no reason to substitute a contrary finding. The

offenc of rape is punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and

wrongful confinement is punishable under Section 342 IPC for
5

which the trial Court has convicted the appellant and same is

hereby affirmed.

11. Heard on the point of sentence.

The trial Court awarded RI for seven years for the offence

under Section 376(1) of the IPC which is minimum prescribed for

the offence. Less than the minimum cannot be awarded,

therefore, sentence part is not liable to be interfered with. As per

the report, the appellant has been released from jail after serving

the full jail sentence awarded to him and after remission granted

to him by the jail authorities. In view of this no further order is

required for his arrest.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
JUDGE
Bini