HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 93 of 2010
Judgment Reserved on 25-9-2018
Judgment delivered on 11-10-2018
• Dularu Singh s/o. Moolchand Verma, aged 35 years, r/o. Baiji,
Police Station Bemetaqra, District Durg (CG).
• State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police
Station Bemetara, District Durg (CG).
For Appellant : Mr. Vishnu Koshta, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 28-1-2010 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg (CG) in Sessions Trial
No. 47 of 2009, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant
for the commission of offence under Section 376 (1) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of
Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
2. In the present case, prosecutrix is PW/1. It is alleged by the
prosecution that on 31-10-2009 at abut 5.00 pm prosecutrix was
cutting grass in her field and at the same time appellant reached
there and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her after
throwing her on the surface against her will and against her
consent. The matter was reported and investigated. After
completion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced
the appellant as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit as under:
i) It is stated by the prosecutrix that she informed the
incident to Dinesh and Dariya but they have not
been examined by the prosecution, therefore,
version of the prosecution is doubtful.
ii) Report is lodged after three days of the incident
and no explanation is given by the prosecution for
delayed FIR, therefore, version of the prosecution
is not reliable.
Iii) As per version of Dr. Rajshee Deodhar (PW/6),
one of the injuries found on the body of the victim
may be self-inflicted, therefore, injuries found on
the body of the victim has no bearing with the
crime in question.
iv) As per version of prosecutrix, she resisted the
appellant during the incident and caused abrasion
on the face of the appellant, but no abrasion was
found on the body of the appellant as per version
of Dr. A.M. Shrivastava (PW/11) who examined
the appellant, therefore, version of prosecutrix is
v) Corroborative piece of evidence is also not
reliable,therefore, finding arrived at by the trial
Court is liable to be reversed.
He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in AIR 2012
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the
impugned judgment would submit that the finding of the trial
Court is based on proper marshaling of evidence which is not
liable to be interfered while invoking jurisdiction of the appeal.
5. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many
as 12 witnesses. PW/1 prosecutrix deposed that on the date of
incident she was cutting grass in her field at about 5.00 pm, and
at the same time, appellant reached there and snatched sickle
from her hand and asked her to submit, when she denied the
appellant forcibly threw her on the surface and committed rape
on her. As per version of this witness, her bangles were broken
during course of incident and the same was seized by the Police
during investigation. This witness has been subjected to
searching cross-examination but nothing could be elicited in
favour of the defence side. This witness is firm about the incident
and her version is supported by FIR (Ex.P/1) recorded at her
instance in which name of the appellant has been mentioned as
culprit. She is firm to her previous statement recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Version of prosecutrix is supported by
the version of her husband namely Mahesh Vema (PW/2). As
per version of this witness he went to village Jiya to see his
mother-in-law who was ill and stayed there for three days. When
he returned to his village, his wife informed him about the
incident. After hearing the incident, he informed the same to his
father namely Manglu Verma and thereafter report was lodged.
Version of this witness is supported by version of Manglu Verma
(PW/3) who is father of Mahesh Verma and father-in-law of the
prosecutrix. Again version of Mahesh Verma is supported by the
statement of PW/4 Aarti Das, Kotwar. Statement of Manglu
(PW/9) is supportive piece of evidence. As per version of this
witness, broken bangles were seized from the spot and at the
place of incident, crops were smashed. Direct evidence of the
prosecution is supported by the medical evidence.
6. Dr. Rajshee Deodhar (PW/6) examined the prosecutrix on
4-10-2009 at about 12.15 pm at Community Health Centre,
Bemetara and noticed the following injuries on her body.
I) Abrasion in the size of 5 cm long and .5 cm
width below scapula lateral to mid-line.
ii) Abrasion in the size of 2cm long above left
Iii) Abrasion in the size of 2 cm long on middle
part of left ring finger on palmar aspect.
iv) Abrasion in the size of 1 cm palmar aspect of
left index in lower part.
All injuries are simple in nature caused by
hard and rough object.
7. Injuries found on the back, chest and fingers of the
prosecutrix supporting the version of the prosecutrix show that
violence was committed on her and she has been subjected to
forcible intercourse without her consent and against her will.
8. True it is that though Dinesh and Dariya to whom the
prosecutrix narrated the story have not been examined, but the
same is not fatal to the prosecution looking to the entire evidence
on record. Offence of rape is normally committed in place of
secrecy, therefore, the evidence of prosecutrix is having decisive
value but other piece of evidence is only supporting piece of
prosecution. Statement of prosecutrix itself is sufficient to bring
home the guilt if the same is of sterling quality. In the present
case, statement of the prosecutrix is wholly reliable because her
version is supported by other evidence and the evidence of
medical expert. Statement of other witnesses to whom the
incident is informed is only hearsay evidence and same is not
material evidence, therefore, it cannot be said that in the present
case, material witnesses have not been examined.
9. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that delay of
three days in lodging the FIR is not explained by the prosecution.
In the present case, from the statement of Mahesh Verma, who
is husband of the prosecutrix, it is clear that he had gone to
other village for three days to see his mother-in-law who was ill
and when he returned to his house incident was informed to him
by his wife and then decision to lodge the report is taken by
them. True it is that there is 3 days delay in lodging the FIR.
Case of sexual assault is dealt by the Hon’ble Apex court in the
matter of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Presi Singh,
reported in (2009) 1 SCC 420 and it was held as under:
“6………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 in 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. In the score, learned
counsel for the appellant is right that the High
Court has lost sight of this vital distinction”.
10. Further, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
matter of OM Prakash v. State of Haryana (2011) 14 SCC 309.
” 18. There is some delay in lodging the FIR
but the delay has been well explained. A
young girl who has undergone the trauma of
rape is likely to be reluctant in describing
those events to anybody including her family
members. The moment she told her parents,
the report was lodged with the police without
any delay. Once a reasonable explanation is
rendered by the prosecution then mere delay
in lodging of a first information report would
not necessarily prove fatal to the case of the
Looking to the entire evidence, delay of 3 days in lodging the
FIR is not fatal to the prosecution.
11. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that no injuries
were found on th face of the appellant while prosecutrix deposed
that she resisted during the incident and caused injury on the
face of the appellant. In view of this court it is not necessary that
injuries must be found on the body of aggressor. The only issue
is whether she resisted during the incident. Looking to the
injuries found on the body of the prsecutrix it is clear that she
resisted during the incident that is why she sustained injuries on
her back, chest and fingers, therefore, argument on this count is
12. Considering all the facts and material on record, this court
is of the view that the case law cited by learned counsel for the
appellant is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present
13. From the statement of the prosecutrix, other supportive
piece of evidence and the evidence of medical expert, it is clearly
established the guilt of the appellant which is punishable under
Section 376 (1) of the IPC for which the trial Court has convicted
and sentenced the appellant and the same is hereby affirmed.
The trial Curt awarded the minimum sentence and less than
minimum sentence cannot be awarded. Sentence part is also not
liable to be interfered with.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds
shall stand cancelled. The trial Court will prepare super session
warrant and issue warrant of arrest against him. After his arrest
he be sent to concerned jail to serve out the remaining part of
the jail sentence. The trial Court to submit compliance report on
or before 11th January, 2019.
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)