1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRA No. 929 of 2009

Samarudas, S/o Aalekh Das Mahant, aged about 30 years, R/o
Raigarh Kabir Chowk, Police Chowki Jute Mill, Police Station Kotwali
Raigarh, Presently R/o Jawahar Para, Police Station Champa,
District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
—- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Schedule Caste
Schedule Tribe Welfare Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
—- Respondent
——————————————————————————————-
For Appellant : None.
For State/respondent : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

——————————————————————————————-

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Judgment On Board
11/12/2018

1. Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate has been engaged by the

High Court Legal Aid 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. Bharat

Rajput, 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 03.11.2009

passed by Special Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) in

Special Session Trial No. 106/2009, wherein the said court

convicted the appellant for commission of offence under

Section 376 (1) of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo R.I.
2

for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- with further default

stipulations.

3. In the present case, prosecutrix is PW-7. As per version of the

prosecution, the prosecutrix was working in one hotel namely

Seven Hotel at Sakti. On 21.01.2009 at about 10:30 p.m.

appellant caught hold the prosecutrix and forcibly committed

sexual intercourse with her. 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) There is one day delay in lodging the FIR and the same

has not been explained properly, therefore, case of the

prosecution is doubtful.

(ii) No internal or external injury was found on body of the

prosecutrix which caused doubt on case of the prosecution.

(iii) There is material contradiction and omission in evidence

of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, 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-7) deposed before the trial court that on

the date of incident i.e. on 21.01.2009 at about 10:00 p.m.
3

when she had gone to her room to collect her cloth kept in

almirah, the appellant entered in her room, pressed her mouth

and committed forcibly sexual intercourse against her will and

without her consent. Version of the prosecutrix (PW-7) is

supported by version of Dr. B.P. Pandey (PW-2) who

examined the appellant and found him capable to intercourse.

Version of prosecutrix (PW-7) is also supported by

Ghanshyam (PW-4) Rohit Kumar (PW-5) who have

informed about the incident by the prosecutrix. All the

witnesses have been subjected to searching cross-

examination, but nothing could be elicited in favour of the

defence. Version of this witness is supported by FIR (Ex. P/5)

which is lodged on next day of the incident i.e. on 22.01.2009

in which name of the appellant is mentioned as culprit and his

act of rape is also mentioned.

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
4

to be followed at par with an injured witness and when her

evidence is inspiring confidence, no corroboration is

necessary.

9. It is true that there is one day delay in lodging report. 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 awarded the appellant with minimum

imprisonment for 7 years and less than minimum cannot be

awarded. 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