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.)
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station – Gourela, District-
For Appellant : None.
For State/respondent : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, PL.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Judgment On Board
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)