SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jeevan @ Raju vs State Of Chhattisgarh 63 … on 5 December, 2018

1

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRA No. 1085 of 2007

• Jeevan @ Raju son of Jaichand Lodhi, aged about 21
years, r/o. Village Surujpura, Police Station Saja,
District Durg (CG).
—- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh though Police Station Saja, Distrrict Durg
(CG).
—- Respondent

———————————————————————————
For Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh Advocate
appears as Amicus Curiae
For respondent/State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer

———————————————————————————

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma

Judgment on Board

05-12-2018

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 16-10-2007 passed

by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Session

Division Durg, District Durg in Sessions Trial No. 341 of

2000 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for

commission of offence under Sections 376(1) and 506-B of

of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,00/-

and RI for two years with default stipulations.

2. In the present case, prosecutrix is PW/4. As per

version of prosecution, prosecutrix went to her parental
2

house on the date of incident at about 11.00 a.m., and went

to market on motor-cycle which was driven by her sister’s son

who is appellant for purchasing some goods. When she

was retuning to her parental house with the appellant,

appellant forcibly caught hold her hand, fell her down on the

ground and thereafter committed rape on her. After

commission of offence he threatened her to kill if she will

narrate the incident to anyone. The matter was reported and

investigated. After completion of trial, the trial Court

convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant as under:

i) There is no eye witness account to the
incident in support of version of the
prosecutrix and the evidence of other
witnesses is not dependable.

ii The trial Court recorded the finding of
conviction on surmises which is not
sustainable.

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.

3

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/4) deposed before the trial Court that

she had gone to her parental house and thereafter she went

to Saja market for purchasing some goods. While she was

returning from market, the appellant provided lift to her on his

motor-cycle and in the mid way he caught hold her hand, fell

her down on the ground and then committed rape on her.

Version of this witness is supported by version of PW/1 Ind

Kunwar and PW/2 Jagdish to whom she narrated the

incident. All these witnesses have been subjected to

searching cross examination, but nothing could be elicited in

favour of defence. Version of this witness is supported by

first information report which is lodged on the next day of the

incident i.e., 31-5-2000 in which name of the appellant is

mentioned as culprit. It is also mentioned in the FIR that

due to night, they did not lodge the report on the same day,

but they lodged report on the next day.

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
4

somebody of ravishing her chastity by sacrificing and

jeopardizing her future prospect.

8. It is true that there is delay of one day 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. 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,

9. Consideration all the facts and circumstances of the

case, this court is of the view that the trial Court has
5

evaluated the evidence elaborately and this court has no

reason to substitute the contrary finding. Offence of rape is

punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and offence of

threatening to kill is punishable under Section 506 Part II of

IPC for which the trial Court has convicted the appellant as

aforementioned and same is hereby affirmed.

10. Heard on the point of sentence.

The trial Court awarded RI for seven years for offence

of rape under Section 376 (1) of IPC and RI for two years for

offence of threatening to kill under Section 506 Part II of

IPC . The trial Court awarded minimum sentence to the

appellant for the offence under Section 376 (1) of IPC and

less than minimum cannot be awarded.

11. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to

be and is hereby dismissed. It appears from the report of

the Jail authorities that the appellant has suffered full term jail

sentence. Therefore, no further order for his arrest etc., is

required. Sd/-

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
Judge

Raju

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh