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.)
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Ranchirai, District Durg (C.G.)
For Appellant : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya, J
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:-
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
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. 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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.