SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohit Ram vs State Of C.G on 17 July, 2018

1

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 2001

Reserved on : 11/07/2018
Delivered on : 17/07/2018

 Mohit Ram S/o Shri Ramkumar, aged about 20 years, R/o Kuthrail, P.S.
Ranchirai, District Durg (C.G.)
—- Appellant

Versus

 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Ranchirai, District Durg (C.G.)
—- Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer

Hon’ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya, J

C.A.V. Judgment

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentences

dated 04.12.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial

No. 101/2001, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

Conviction: Sentences:

Under Section 376 of the Rigorous imprisonment for
Indian Penal Code seven years and pay a fine of
(hereinafter referred to as Rs. 500/- and in default of
the ‘IPC’) payment to further undergo
simple imprisonment for three
months

Under Section 450 of IPC rigorous imprisonment for five
years and pay a fine of Rs.
500/- and in default of payment
to further undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
Both the sentences to run concurrently
2

2. Brief facts of the case are that the prosecutrix (PW-2) is aged about 26

years. On 21.1.2001, First Information Report (Ex.-P/2) was lodged by the

prosecutrix (PW-2) alleging in it that accused/appellant committed rape upon her.

As per FIR (Ex.-P/2), on the date of incident i.e. on 21.1.2001 at about 9:30 AM, her

husband had gone to answer the call of nature, her mother-in-law was going to

pond for washing clothes, her father-in-law had also gone to village and her small

children were watching TV in another room and the prosecutrix was cleaning her

room. At that time, the accused/appellant entered into her house saying that a letter

has come from village Khamariya and the same was given to her. As soon as she

read the letter, the accused forcibly caught her. When she cried, the accused gaged

her mouth and threw on the ground of the room and committed forcible sexual

intercourse with her. When she was resisting the accused, her husband came there

and saw the accused was committing rape with her wife. Her husband tried to

caught the accused, but he (accused) anyhow fled away from there. At the time of

catching the accused, her bangles were broken and her head and wrist were

injured. Thereafter, she promptly lodged the FIR (Ex.-P/2) against the

accused/appellant.

3. The investigating Officer- Mahalaxmi Kuldeep (PW-6) left for the scene

occurrence on 21.1.2001 and prepared muaka-naksha (Ex.-P/7). Spot map (Ex.-

P/20) was prepared by Patwari – Kriparam Sahu (PW-7). The prosecutrix was sent

for her medical examination to Community Health Center, Gunderdehi. She was

examined by Dr.(Smt.) Bhanu Deshlahra (PW-8). Doctor found that on external

injury, there was bleeding and pain present on the left frontal region, size 1 cm x

1.5 cm; abrasion present of the left forearm. There is no internal injury was present.

Hymen was ruptured (old) and sign of habitual intercourse. Vaginal slide and smear

of the prosecutrix were prepared and handed over to the concerned police officer

and advised for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. Her

report dated 22.1.2001 marked as Ex.-P/21. On the same day, Doctor also
3

examined the peticoat (Ex.-P/22)of the prosecutrix. She found that white stains and

bleeding were present on the many spaces of anterior and post portion of the

peticoat and advised for chemical examination.

4. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant

under Sections 376, 450 and 506-B IPC and while framing the charges, the trial

Judge framed the charge against the accused/appellant under Sections 376, 450

and 506-B IPC.

5. The prosecution, in all, has examined as many as 11 witnesses. There was

no witness examined on behalf of the defence. Statement of the accused was also

recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Code of Procedure, in which he denied

the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded

innocence and false implication.

6. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties and considering the

material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced

the accused/appellant as mentioned above and has acquitted the accused from

charge under Section 506-B of IPC mentioned in paragraph 29 of the judgment,

hence this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is material

contradiction in the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her husband, Kalyan

Singh (PW-3). He also submitted that Lekhuram (PW-4) is a relative witness who is

uncle of Kalyan Singh (PW-3). His testimony cannot be relied upon. There is no

independent witness in this case. He further submitted that the Doctor (PW-8) has

stated, in her cross-examination that no pubic hair or injury was present on the

private part of the prosecutrix (PW-2). Therefore, the appellant is an innocent

person and he has not committed rape against the prosecutrix and has been falsely

implicated in this case.

4

8. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment

impugned. It has been argued by the State Counsel that the conviction of the

appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.

9. We have heard the counsel for the respective parties and perused the

evidence on record.

10. Prosecutrix (PW-2) knew the accused/appellant. She deposed that at about

9:30 AM, when she was cleaning her house, accused/appellant entered into her

house and informed that one letter has come from Khamariya village and suddenly

when she was near the door of room, accused forcibly taken to her in the room and

fall down on floor and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her, and when she

cries, the accused gaged her mouth. Prosecutrix further deposed that she tried to

free from accused, on this, her head and wrist were injured and her bangles were

broken. She also deposed that at that time her husband was returned and saw that

the accused was committing sexual intercourse against prosecutrix (PW-2). Her

husband caught the accused, but accused anyhow fled away from that place. The

incident was informed to the one Lekhuram and many persons were assembled

there. Thereafter, she went along with her husband to lodge the FIR (Ex.-P/2).

11. PW-3, Kalyan Singh, is husband of the prosecutrix (PW-2). He also

supported the prosecutrix version and deposed, in his deposition, that after the

incident, accused requested for forgiveness. He deposed that on cries of his wife,

he went to the room, switch on the light of room and saw the accused was

committing sexual intercourse with his (PW-3) wife and caught the accused. From

where, he (accused) anyhow fled away from the room. This was informed to

villager Lekhu, puranik, shyamlal and thereafter he alongwith his wife went to the

police station and lodged the FIR.

5

12. PW-4, Lekhuram, also supported the statement of prosecutrix. He also

deposed, in his deposition, that he was informed by the husband of the prosecutrix

regarding rape committed by the accused against the prosecutrix and going to

lodge FIR.

13. PW-1, Girwar, proved the seizure of chhaddi of accused (Ex.-P/1). PW-5,

Ganesh Ram Sahu, proved the seizure of broken bangle (Ex-P/8), wearing bangle

(Ex.-P/4) and letter/post-card (Ex.-P/6). PW-6, Mahalaxmi Kuldeep, who

investigated the case, proved this fact from the place of incident, he seized the

broken bangles. PW-7, Kriparam Sahu – Patwari, prepared the spot map Ex.-P/20

and there is no contradiction regarding place of occurrence. PW-9, Shyamlal, is a

seizure witness of peticoat of prosecutrix (Ex.-P/3). PW-11, Rambagas Sidar –

Head Constable is a formal witness of seizure.

14. PW-8, Dr.(Smt.) Bhanu Deshlahra, found, in her report Ex.-P/21, external

injury on the person of the prosecutrix. There was bleeding and pain present on the

left frontal region and abrasion was present on the left forearm of the prosecutrix

and hymen was ruptured (old) and sign of habitual intercourse. She also examined

the peticoat of the prosecutrix and found that white stains and bleeding were

present on the many spaces of anterior and post portion of the peticoat and

advised for chemical examination.

15. PW-10, Dr. A.P.S. Dubey, who examined the accused/appellant and he

opined that sex organ of the accused are well development and erects on

stimulation and he can do intercourse. His report also marked as Ex.-P/22.

16. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that it is clear

that on the date of incident, the accused entered into the house of prosecutrix

saying that one letter has come from Khamariya and that time accused forcefully

committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. There is no contradiction and
6

omission in the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses. There is no reason to

disbelieve and discard the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-2), Kalyan Singh

(PW-3) and Lekhuram (PW-4). PW-1, PW-5, PW-9 and PW-11 are the seizure

witnesses and they proved the above seized articles (Ex.-P/1, P/3, P/4, P/6 and

P/8) respectively and supported the prosecution case. Dr.(Smt.) Bhanu Deshlahra

(PW-8), in her report Ex.-P/21, found above external injury on the person of the

prosecutrix and also examined the peticoat of the prosecutrix in which stains and

bleeding were present. Dr. A.P.S. Dubey (PW-10) who examined the

accused/appellant and he opined that he was capable to sexual intercourse. Both

the Doctors (PW-8 and PW-10) have also supported the prosecution case. I have

gone through the entire evidence and material available on record and come to the

conclusion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant/accused

under Sections 376 and 450 IPC.

17. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed by the trial Court. The appeal has no merits. The same

deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

18. It is stated that the accused/appellant is on bail since 21.2.2002. His bail

bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender and to be taken into custody

forthwith to serve the remaining part of the sentences awarded to him.

19. Records of the trial Court be sent back.

Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge

vatti

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation