HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2010
Ramcharitra Kaser son of Mahajan Kaser, aged about 19
years, Resident of village Khodri, Police Station Udaypur,
District Surguja (CG)
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Udaypur,
District Surguja (CG)
For Appellant : Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate
For State/ Respondent : Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAM PRASANNA SHARMA
JUDGMENT ON BOARD
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated
9.12.2009 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge(FTC),
Surguja at Ambikapur (CG) in Sessions Trial No.317/2008, wherein
the said Court has convicted the appellant for commission of offence
under Sections 363, 366-A and 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of
the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of
Rs.500/-; R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/- and R.I. for 10
years and fine of Rs.1000/- respectively with default stipulation. All
the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. As per the prosecution case, the appellant enticed the minor
prosecutrix and procure her to go from other place knowing that she
will be seduced to illicit intercourse and attempted to commit rape
on her on 18.9.2008 at about 4.00 pm at village Khodri, Police
Station- Udaypur, District Surguja (CG). The prosecutrix aged about
4 years was playing in front of her house and at the same time, the
appellant took her away from the lawful guardianship of her parents
and she has been procured for providing to maize field and
thereafter, the appellant tried to commit rape on her. The matter was
reported and investigated and after completion of trial, the appellant
was convicted and sentenced as above.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under :
(i) The prosecutrix has not been examined before the trial Court,
therefore, the charges are not established;
(ii) Though one eye-witness has been examined to establish the
guilt, but his version is full of contradictions and same is not a
reliable piece of evidence;
(iii) Even otherwise at the most it would be a case under Section
354 IPC and other charges are not proved by the evidence of the
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting
the judgment submits that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is
based on proper marshalling of oral and documentary evidence
which is just and proper and the same is not liable to interfered with
invoking jurisdiction of appeal.
6. To substantiate the charge prosecution has examined as
many as 6 witnesses.
7. As per order sheet of the trial Court dated 25.9.2009, the
prosecutrix appeared before the trial Court, but as she was unable
to speak regarding the incident she was not examined. The case of
the prosecution is based on the statement of Anuj Kumar (PW3),
who is sole eye-witness of the incident and as per version of this
witness, he was playing with the prosecutrix in the house of
appellant. He deposed that the appellant came on the spot and
procured the prosecutrix for providing her to maize field and in his
kitchen garden, he made her lay down, removed her clothes and
committed bad work. As per version of this witness, the appellant
himself has removed his undergarments. This witness was
subjected to searching cross-examination, but from his entire
version it cannot be inferred that he is a tutored witness. He has
simply denied that he deposed against the appellant on account of
tutoring by his father or by the counsel.
8. In the present case, date of incident is 18.9.2008 and the
matter was reported to Police Station, Udaypur next day i.e. on
19.9.2008, in which, name of the appellant is mentioned as culprit.
Version of Anuj Kumar (PW3) is recorded on next day of the incident
by the Investigating Officer in which he has stated about the incident
and he is firm to his version right from the day of incident to
deposition before the Court.
9. Dr. Lata Goyal (PW6), who has examined the prosecutrix has
opined that no injury mark was found on her body and on her private
part. Looking to the version of eye-witness and the medical
evidence, the trial Court opined that it is not a case of rape, but
looking to the act committed by the appellant, it is a case of attempt
to commit rape. An attempt may be described to be an act more
than mere preparation but falling short of actual consummation.
Considering the evidence of the eye-witness, it is established that
the appellant had shown progress for commission of offence and
therefore, finding of the trial Court regarding commission of attempt
to rape is based on direct and medical evidence and this Court has
no reason to record a contrary finding. Accordingly, conviction of the
10. Heard on the point of sentence :
The appellant had suffered jail term from 22.9.2008 to
7.4.2011 i.e. more than 2 ½ years. Corporeal punishment awarded
by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him,
while the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.
The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall
continue for a period of six months in view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
11. With these modifications, the appeal is partly allowed.
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)