HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
CRA No. 510 of 2014
• Jansai Dhanuhar s/o. Dharau Dhanuhar, aged about 22 years,
r/o. Village Baigapara, Ghumandidah, Bango, District Korba, Civil
Revenue District Korba (CG).
• State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police
Station Bango, District Korba (CG).
For Appellant : Ms. Ashmita Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer
Judgment on Board
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 12-2-2014 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Katghora, Sessions Division Korba, in Sessions
Trial No. 25 of 2013 wherein the said court has convicted the
appellant under Sections 450 and 376 (1) of the IPC and
sentenced him to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of
Rs.500/- and RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
respectively with default stipulations for committing house
trespass in the house of prosecutrix (PW/2) in order to commit
rape on her and for committing rape on prosecutrix.
2. As per prosecution case, prosecutrix was in her house on 16-1-
2013 at about 5.00 p.m., with her child aged about two years
namely Deendayal and at the same time appellant entered into
the house of prosecutrix and committed rape on her. On hearing
cries of the prosecutrix, her husband Ramayan came to the spot
from where appellant fled away after commission of offence
Ramayan tried to catch him, but the appellant anyhow managed
to escape. The matter was reported in Police Station Bango and
after completion of trial, the trial Court has convicted the
appellant as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit as under:
(i) There is delay of two days in lodging first
information report which is fatal to prosecution,
but the trial Court overlooked this aspect of the
(ii) There is previous enmity between the parties,
but the trial Court did not appreciate the same
and came to a wrong conclusion.
(iii) There are material omissions and
contradictions in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses which do not warrant
conviction of the appellant, but the trial Court
did not give due weightage to evidence in its
(v) Independent witnesses have not supported the
case of prosecution but the trial Court has not
evaluated their version and conviction of the
appellant is bad in law. As per Doctor Namita
Waltar (PW/5), there was no internal injury on
the body of the prosecutrix, therefore, offence
under Section 376 (1) of the IPC is not made
4. Per contra, learned State counsel supporting the impugned
judgment of the trial Court has submitted that the finding arrived
at by the trial Court is just and proper and there is no illegality or
infirmity in it warranting any interference by this Court.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on
6. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as
many as eleven witnesses.
7. Prosecutrix (PW/2) deposed that on the date of incident at about
5.00 pm she was with her child in the house and at the same
time appellant entered into her house and committed rape on
her. Version of this witness is firm after searching cross
examination and nothing could be elicited in favour of defence.
PW/4 Ramayan is husband of the prosecutrix who deposed that
on cries of his wife, he reached to the place of incident where the
appellant was committing rape on his wife. He tried to catch the
appellant on the spot, but anyhow he managed to flee away. He
further deposed that one blue colour Jean full pant and one
chappal were left by the appellant in his house. He further
deposed that he informed the matter to village Kotwar and the
other villagers who advised him to report the matter to police
authorities. Version of this witness is again supported by version
of Dheer Singh (PW/3) to whom prosecutrix and her husband
informed about the incident. Version of all these witnesses is firm
right from the day of lodging the report and there is nothing to
discard their testimonies.
8. True it is that the incident took place on 16-1-2013 and first
information report was lodged after two days i.e., on 18-1-2013,
but the delay in lodging the first information report can occur due
to various reasons. One of the reasons is the reluctance of the
victim or her family members to go to the Police Station and to
make a complaint about the incident which concerns the
reputation of the victim and the honour of the entire family. In
such cases, after giving very cool thought and considering all
pros and cons arising out of an unfortunate incident, a complaint
of sexual offence is generally lodged either by victim or by any
member of her family.
9. In the present case, the delay is not abnormal because the
incident was informed to villagers and thereafter the victim
decided to lodge the first information report which was lodged
just after the incident. In the present case, prosecutrix cried on
the spot and and on hearing her cries, her husband reached to
the spot when the appellant was committing rape on his wife. It
is not the case that the prosecutrix suppressed the fact to
anyone after the incident, therefore, delay of two days in lodging
FIR is not sufficient to discard the prosecution case in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
10. There is no force in the contention put-forth by the defence that
the report is lodged on account of enmity. In case of rape no self
respecting woman could come forward in a court just to make a
humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in
the commission of rape on her. The inherent bashfulness of the
females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual
aggression are factors which are to be looked into.
11. Version of prosecutrix is firm and the same is supported by the
the version of witness who was on the spot and therefore, it is
not a case where any scope to infer that such an allegation is
made on account of any enmity. There is no material
discrepancy in the evidence of all three witnesses. It is settled
law that the discrepancies which do not affect the core of the
prosecution case or credibility of a witness cannot be levelled as
omissions and contradictions. The evidence of all the three
witnesses as a whole, appears to have ring of truth and if any
witness defers in some details in relation to main incident, her/his
version cannot be rejected. In the present case, all the witnesses
are firm from the date of the incident and this Court has no
reason to reject their version.
12. Rape is committed in a place of secrecy, therefore, eye-
witnesses are seldom available. If the version of the prosecutrix
is reliable, then it needs no corroboration, therefore, theory of
corroboration by independent witness in case of rape is merit-
less. Dr. Namita Waltar (PW/5) examined the prosecutrix on 18-
1-2013 and noticed the following injuries on her body.
i) There was abrasion in the size of 1 x 2 cm
over back side of both the shoulders.
ii) Medral lesion of back abrasion in the size of
1 x 2 cm
iii) In both buttocks (5x 12 cm) inflammation and
tenderness on the side skin colour is bluish.
iv) In both sides, front of high anterior medical
aspect inflammation and tenderness in the
size of 4×10 cm in right thigh and 3x 8 cm
over left thigh.
v) In vulva in vaginal opening two fingers
inserted in side of vaginal – vaginal
discharge and collected on glass slide, one
hair particle found in vagina, it preserves in
vi) Patient self pubic hair preserve in glass slide.
vii) Patient self blood sample preserve in glass
13. Looking to the injuries and after internal examination, the expert
opined that the intercourse is committed against the prosecutrix.
Even if no injury is found on the body of the victim, in case of
rape primacy is with the statement of the prosecutrix, but in the
present case, several injuries were found on the body of the
victim and the statement of the victim is of a sterling quality
which cannot be rejected. The argument advanced on behalf of
the appellant is not sustainable. House trespass in order to
commit rape is an offence under Section 450 of IPC and
commission of rape is punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC
for which the trial Court convicted the appellant and the same is
not liable to be interfered.
14. Heard on the point of sentence.
The trial Court awarded RI for seven years for offence
punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC which is minimum
punishment and less than minimum cannot be awarded.
Sentence part is also not liable to be interfered.
15. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
The appellant is reported to be in jail, therefore, no further order
for his arrest etc., is required to be passed.
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)