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