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.)
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Schedule Caste
Schedule Tribe Welfare Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
For Appellant : None.
For State/respondent : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Judgment On Board
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
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.
for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- with further default
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
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.
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
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 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.
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)