HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 620 of 2010
Reserved on : 19.10.2018
Delivered on : 28.11.2018
Hariram, S/o Kushal, aged about 55 years, R/o Village- Sitagaon,
Police Station Aundhi, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Police Station Aundhi, District-
For Appellant : Mr. M.K. Bhaduri, Advocate.
For State/respondent : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
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 20.08.2010
passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon
(C.G.) in Session Trial No. 82/2009, 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 8 years and fine of Rs. 500/- R.I. for 1
year and fine of Rs. 500/- respectively with further default
2. In the present case, prosecutrix is PW-1 who is daughter-in-
law of the appellant/convict. The prosecutrix was married to
one Sanjulal Meshram in the year 2008 who is son of the
appellant. She was living with her husband- Sanjulal
Meshram, mother-in-law, father-in-law/ appellant and sister-in-
law (Sister of husband). On 23.02.2009, she went to forest
with her father-in-law/ appellant for collecting fire wood where
the appellant forcibly committed rape on her and threatened
her to kill if she will disclose this incident to anyone.
Thereafter, the appellant repeatedly committed rape with the
prosecutrix. On 14.06.2009, she came to her parental house
and narrated the incident to her father mother as well as
villagers of parental village. Thereafter, report (Ex.P/1) was
lodged and investigated and after completion of trial, the trial
court convicted as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:-
(i) The appellant has been falsely implicated due to
personal vindict and loan transaction which took place
between parents of the prosecutrix and the appellant.
(ii) The FIR is belated and there is no sufficient explanation
of delay in lodging the FIR, therefore, version of the
prosecution is doubtful.
(iii) The medical expert does not corroborate the incident,
therefore, case of the prosecution is under cloud.
(iv) The prosecutrix did not complain anyone for a long time
though, she had sufficient opportunity to disclose the fact,
therefore, her version is not reliable.
(v) The so called extra judicial confession made by the
appellant is not legally admissible evidence, therefore, no
reliance can be placed on it.
(vi) Husband of the prosecutrix was prime witness to the
incident but, he has not been examined by the prosecution
though prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband,
therefore, adverse inference could be drawn against the
(vii) There is material contradiction and omission in the
statement of the witnesses and conviction is a moral
conviction which is not liable to be sustained.
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-1) deposed that her marriage was
performed with Sanjulal Meshram who is son of the appellant.
She was living with the appellant, her husband, mother-in-law
and sister-in-law. On 23.02.2009 she went to forest for
bringing fire wood with the appellant in Kalangwahi Forest and
in that forest, the appellant made her lie down in surface
below one tree and committed rape on her. As per version of
this witness, the appellant threatened her to kill if she will
narrate the incident to anyone. She further deposed that she
informed about the incident to her husband, but he did not
believe on her and on the contrary said that she is falsely
bringing down reputation of his father. She further deposed
that after 15 days, the appellant again committed rape on her.
She further deposed that whenever no member of family was
present in the home on any date, he committed rape on her.
When it was unbearable to her, she came to her parental
home where narrated story to her mother, father brother.
Villagers of the parental village gathered in which the
appellant made extra judicial confession regarding rape
against the prosecutrix. This witness has been subjected to
searching cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited in
favour of the defence.
6. Version of this witness is supported by version of
Dayashankar (PW-2) who is father of the prosecutrix to whom
she narrated the incident. This witness has also been
subjected to incisive cross-examination, but is stable to his
version. Mukesh Kumar Sahare (PW-3) is brother of the
prosecutrix and he also confirmed that the prosecutrix
informed him regarding rape by the appellant. He also
deposed regarding threat given by the appellant to the
prosecutrix. Krishna (PW-4) is a person who was present in
the meeting organized on the parental village of the
prosecutrix. As per version of this witness, the appellant made
extra judicial confession regarding his crime against the
7. Dr. Mohan Tikam (PW-7) examined the appellant and found
him capable to perform intercourse. Baldev (PW-12) deposed
that the prosecutrix informed him regarding rape by the
appellant. This witness has also been subjected to searching
cross-examination, but remain unshaken.
8. True it is that delay is caused in lodging report, 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 where father-in-law in
whose custody the prosecutrix was living in the house, has
committed rape on her. The husband has not supported the
prosecutrix for the simple reason that he is also dependent on
his father. He is not having guts to challenge the father. When
no member of matrimonial home was supporting the
prosecutrix, it is natural that she will try to get support of
parental home. The prosecutrix informed the incident to her
father and mother and thereafter, report was lodged.
9. 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 by father-in-law on such a manner. Obviously, the
prosecutrix must have also gone through turmoil and after
support of father and mother decided to lodge FIR. The delay
in case of sexual assault that to by father-in-law cannot be
equated with case involved other offences. There are several
factors in the mind of the prosecutrix before coming to the
10. 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
11. In the present case, the prosecutrix was able to lodge report
only after support of father, mother and villagers otherwise
she would not have courage to go alone to police station. 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
12. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that the
appellant is falsely implicated on account of some loan
transaction is without substance. 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.
13. In the present case, it is father-in-law who overpowered her
and there is no reason for her to falsely rope her father-in-law
for charge of commission of rape. From any angle, it cannot
be said that report was lodged on account of any dispute of
14. True it is that husband of the prosecutrix has not supported
her but the fact remains that he is first son of the appellant
and then he is husband of the prosecutrix and he has chosen
to be with father, therefore, his non-examination will not help
the defence side.
15. 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 against her
father-in-law. She has made a humiliting statement against
her honour and against her father-in-law which cannot be
seen with suspicion, this will aid to her injury, therefore,
argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is not
16. The case laws cited on behalf of the appellant in the matter of
Nandlal Yadav Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2002 (2) MPLJ
376 and Rajkumar another Vs. State of M.P. reported in
2001 (4) MPLJ 468, are distinguishable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
17. 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
18. The trial court awarded jail sentence of 8 years and fine of Rs.
500/- 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.
19. The appellant is reported to be on jail, therefore, no order for
his arrest etc. is required.
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)