1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRA No. 513 of 2009

Patram Panika, aged 25 years, S/o Fagun Lal, R/o village- Sonmuda
(Dabari- Para), P.S.- Pendra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
—- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station – Gourela, District-
Bilaspur (C.G.)
—- Respondent
——————————————————————————————-
For Appellant : None.
For State/respondent : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, PL.

——————————————————————————————-

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Judgment On Board
10/12/2018

1. Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate has been engaged for

arguing the case on behalf of the appellant. Despite repeated

calls, he has not appeared when the case is called for final

hearing, therefore, Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate, who is

present in the Court has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to

argue the case on behalf of the appellant.

2. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 11.12.2007

passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, District-

Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. P18/2007, wherein the

said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence

under Section 376 (1) of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo

R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 200/- with further default

stipulations.

2

3. In the present case, prosecutrix is PW-1. As per version of the

prosecution, the prosecutrix is resident of Bhagat Singh Ward,

Old Gourela, who was studying in class-VI. After leaving the

school, she was working as labour in Poha Mill of one

Kamlesh Agrawal. The appellant and others were also working

in the said mill. The appellant made physical relation with the

prosecutrix without her consent and against her will that is

why the matter was reported, the appellant was charge-

sheeted and after completion of trial, the trial court convicted

as mentioned above.

4. This appeal is preferred on the following grounds :-

(i) The prosecutrix kept mum in the matter for a long

period, therefore, her version is not reliable.

(ii) No birth register was produced before the trial court,

therefore, age of the prosecutrix cannot be ascertain on the

evidence adduced by the prosecution.

(iii) Delay in lodging report is not explained. The finding

arrived at by the trial court is not sustainable and the same is

liable to be reversed.

5. Learned State counsel submits that the finding arrived at by

the trial court is based on proper marshaling of evidence and

the same does not warrant any interference of this Court with

invoking jurisdiction of the appeal.

6. The prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed that the appellant committed

sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her
3

consent. He had promised with her to marriage that is why

she did not complain and again, he threatened her that is why

also, she did not complain. When the appellant harassed her

regularly. She informed about the matter to her mother and

thereafter, report was lodged. Version of the prosecutrix is

supported by version of Smt. Meena (PW-2) who is mother of

the prosecutrix. Again, her version is supported by version of

Dr. N.S. Paikra (PW-3) who examined the appellant and found

him capable of intercourse. All the witnesses have been

subjected to searching cross-examination, but nothing could

be elicited in favour of the defence.

7. There is no material contradiction and omission in the

statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. Minor

contradictions which do not go to the root of the case are

insignificant and therefore, minor contradictions have no

adverse affect to the entire case of the prosecution.

8. 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

necessary.

4

9. It is true that there is delay in lodging report. From statement

of the prosecutrix, it is clear that she was fearful of threating

by the appellant and he had falsely promised her of marriage

that is why report was lodged with delay. 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 delayed FIR.

The delay in 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

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.

10. The trial court has elaborately discussed the entire evidence

and after reassessing the evidence, this Court has no reason

to record contrary finding. Commission of rape by the

appellant is offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of IPC

for which the trial court convicted the appellant and the same

is not liable to be interfered with and conviction of the

appellant is hereby affirmed.

5

Heard on the point of sentence

11. The trial court awarded R.I. for 7 years which cannot be

termed as harsh, disproportionate or unreasonable looking to

the gravity of offence and the same is not liable to be

interfered with. The sentence part is also not liable to be

interfered with. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is

hereby dismissed.

12. It is reported that the appellant has suffered full jail sentence

and has been released from jail after getting benefit of

remission, therefore, no further order of arrest etc. is required.

Sd/-

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
Judge

Arun