HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 548 of 2011
• Ishwer s/o Mhan aged about 30 years, occupation Bidi
Majdoor, r/o., Bazarpara Charama, Thana Charama,
District Kanker (CG).
• State of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate,
North Bastar, Kanker, District Kanker (CG).
For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For respondent/State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Judgment on Board
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 28-05-2011 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Kanker, District North Bastar,
Kanker (CG) in Sessions Trial No.06 of 2011 wherein the
said Court has convicted the appellant for commission of
offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- with default
2. In the present case, prosecutrix is PW/2. As per version
of the prosecution, prosecutrix resides at Bazarpara
Charama with her parents and on 28-10-2010 appellant
called the prosecutrix and her friend namely Ku. Rukmani for
packing the Rangoli and thereafter he gave assurance to
provide fruits and after caught hold the prosecutrix removed
her clothes and tried to commit intercourse with her. The
matter was reported and investigated. After completion of
trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him as
3. The appeal is preferred on the following grounds.
i) From the statement of the prosecutrix
offence of attempt to rape is not made out
and even if the statement is accepted as it
is, then offence under Section 354 IPC is
ii Dr. Smt. Deepti (PW/7) has not given any
report regarding rape or attempt to rape
who examined the prosecutrix on the same
iii) Version of prosecution is not believable and
other witnesses are hearsay in nature,
therefore, finding arrived at by the trial
Court is not sustainable.
iv) There is enmity between the parties and
due to that reason the appellant has been
falsely implicated, therefore, finding of the
trial Court is liable to be reversed.
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 marshalling 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 record of the court below in which impugned
judgment is passed.
6. Prosecutrix (PW/2) deposed before the trial Court that
the appellant allured her for giving fruits and thereafter took
her to his room, undressed her and made her laid down on
surface and committed bad work with her. She further
deposed that she sustained pain in her private part and she
informed the incident to her parents and her other near and
dears. Version of this witness is supported by version of
PW/1 Rajesh Kumar who is father of the victim. Smt. Sushma
Jha (PW/3) and Smt. Lalita ( PW/6). All the witnesses have
been subjected to searching cross examination but nothing
could be elicited in favour of defence. Version of this witness
is supported by Dr. Smt. Deepti Goutam (PW/4) whom
examined the victim and found reddishness and pain on
private part of the prosecutrix. Again, it is supported by Dr.
O.P. Shankhwar (PW/8) who examined the appellant and
found him capable of intercourse. In the present case, date of
incident is 28-10-2010 and report was lodged on the same
day naming the appellant as culprit and his act of commission
of attempt to rape is also mentioned in the said report.
7. 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 with an injured witness and when her
evidence is inspiring confidence, no corroboration is
8. There is no delay 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 little 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 assessing the evidence, this court has no reason
to say that the appellant has been falsely implicated. There
is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of prosecutrix and
other witnesses, therefore, argument advanced on behalf of
the appellant is not sustainable. The trial Court has
considered the evidence elaborately led before it and
recorded the finding of conviction. This court has no reason
to substitute the contrary finding.
10. Attempt to rape is an offence under Section 376 read
with Section 511 of IPC for 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 looking to
attempt of rape, which cannot be termed as harsh or
unreasonable or disproportionate. Sentence part is also not
liable to be interfered with.
12. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable
to be and is hereby dismissed. As per report of the jail
authorities, the appellant has suffered jail term and he has
been released from jail after remission, therefore, no further
order for his arrest etc., is required.
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)