1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRA No. 609 of 2009

Devlal S/o Shri Kunjalu Gond aged about 35 years, R/o Village –
Borid, P.S. Fingeshwar, District Raipur (CG)
—- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Fingeshwar District Raipur (CG)
—- Respondent
——————————————————————————————-
For Appellant : Mr. M.K. Baeg, Advocate.
For State/respondent : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

——————————————————————————————-

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAM PRASANNA SHARMA
JUDGMENT ON BOARD
10/12/2018

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 25.3.2009,

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District

Raipur(C.G.) in Session Trial No. 7/2009, wherein the said court

has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under

Sections 376 (1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10

years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

2. In the present case, prosecutrix is PW1. As per the case of

prosecution, the prosecutrix is living in village Borid. On

29.10.2008, at about 3.00 pm the prosecutrix and her daughter

in law Budhiyarin Bai were at home and her husband has gone

to village Chingrau and her two sons were also not at home

and they had gone to earn their livelihood. At the same time the

appellant came into her home and asked her for bread when

daughter in law of the prosecutrix went away from the house,
2

the appellant assaulted her sexually and raped her. On hearing

her cries, her daughter in law reached there, the appellant ran

away. The matter was reported and investigated and after

completion of trial, the trial court convicted and sentenced and

appellant as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:-

(i) The statements of the prosecution witnesses are

contradictory and version of the prosecution is not reliable.

(ii) Ingredients of offence under Section 376 IPC is not made

out. The trial Court has ignored the material contradictions and

omissions, therefore, finding of 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 proper

marshalling of evidence and same is not liable to be interfered

with invoking jurisdiction of appeal.

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

record of the trial Court.

6. Prosecutrix PW1 deposed that when no one was in her house,

the appellant entered and removed her garments and

committed sexual intercourse with her. When she cried for help

daughter in law of the prosecutrix namely- Budhariyan Bai

rushed there, who saw the incident and thereafter, the appellant

ran away. Version of this witness is supported by the version of

Budhayarin Bai (PW2) who has seen the incident. Again, it is
3

supported by the version of Rekhram (PW3), Mahesh Kumar

(PW4), Ashok Kumar Sahu (PW5) and Smt. Nirmala Bai (PW6).

Version of these witness is supported by the evidence of Dr.

D.P. Kudeshiya (PW8), who examined the appellant and found

him capable of doing intercourse. All these witnesses were

subjected to searching cross-examination, but nothing could be

elicited in favour of the defence.

7. In the present case, date of incident is 29.10.2008 and FIR is

lodged as per Ex.P1 at Police Station Fingeshwar next day i.e.

30.10.2008 in which name of the appellant is mentioned as

culprit and his act is also mentioned.

8. Looking to the entire evidence, it is established that the

appellant committed rape on the prosecutrix. There is no

material contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix, her

daughter in law and other witnesses. Minor contradictions

which do not go to the root of the case are insignificant and

therefore, minor contradictions have no adverse affect to the

entire case of the prosecution. The statement of the prosecutrix

is quite natural, inspires 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 and when her evidence is

inspiring confidence, no corroboration is necessary.
4

9. It is true that there is delay of 2 days in lodging the report at

Police Station. When report is 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 little delay of 2

days in lodging the FIR. The delay in a case of sexual assault

cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There

are several factors in the mind of the prosecutrix 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 delay in lodging FIR. 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.

10. After assessing the evidence, this Court has no reason to say

that the appellant has been false implicated. There is no

reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial

Court opined that the appellant has committed rape against the

prosecutrix. This Court has no reason to substitute a contrary

finding.

5

11. Offence of rape is punishable under Section 376 (1) IPC, for

which, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant

and same is hereby affirmed.

12. Heard on the point of sentence:

The trial court has awarded jail sentence of R.I. for 10 years

and fine of Rs.500/- for commission of offence under Section

376 (1) of IPC and 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 sentence part is

also not liable to be interfered with.

13. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be

and is hereby dismissed. It is reported that the appellant has

suffered full term of his jail sentence and has been released,

therefore, no order for his arrest etc. is required.

Sd/

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
Judge

sunita