HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.496 of 2010
Sujit Sarkar, S/o. Jagdish Sarkar, aged about 28 years, R/o.
P.V. 79 Bande, Police Station Bande, District North Bastar
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station Bande,
Distt. North Bastar Kanker (CG)
For the appellant : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For the respondent/State: Shri Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Judgment On Board
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
09.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),
Bhanupratappur Distt. North Bastar Kanker (CG) in Session Trial
No.96/2009 wherein the said Court convicted the appellant for
commission of offence under Sections 376(1) and 323 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of 500/-; RI for one
years with default stipulations.
2. In the present case, prosecutrix is PW-2. As per the
prosecution case, on 08.9.2009, the prosecutrix went to her field
for the purpose of removing grass along with her nephew Amit. At
about 11.30 am, Amit returned to the house for bringing lunch.
Thereafter the appellant came there, caught hold her and when
she tried to shout, the appellant put his hand on her mouth and
took her to nearby place by pulling and dragging. Thereafter he
removed her sari and petticoat and committed sexual intercourse
with her without her consent and against her will. When she
returned to the field her husband was present there to whom she
narrated the story where the appellant admitted his guilt and made
negotiation with the husband of the prosecutrix that he should not
report the matter. But when husband of the prosecutrix denied,
the appellant assaulted him on his back by club. The matter was
reported and investigated and after completion of the
investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:
(i) As per the version of the prosecutrix the appellant put
her twice on the ground but the medical examination of the
prosecutrix shows that there is no injury on the person of the
prosecutrix which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.
(ii) Looking to the statement of the prosecutrix it is a
case of consent but the trial Court overlooked this aspect of the
(iii) Finding of the trial Court is not based of the evidence
on record, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting
the impugned judgment would submit that the finding of the trial
Court is based on proper marshaling of the evidence and the
same is not liable to be interfered while invoking the jurisdiction of
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
6. Prosecutrix (PW-2) deposed that on the date of incident,
she was working in her field along with her nephew Amit. After
some time Amit left the place for brining food and at the same
time the appellant reached there and called her when she denied
he caught hold her pressed her mouth dragged her and after
removing her garments committed sexual intercourse with her
without her consent and against her will. She further deposed that
when she was returning, her husband reached there and the
appellant also reached there and tried to make negotiation with
her husband. But when her husband denied, the appellant
assaulted him with club. This witness has been subjected to
searching cross-examination but nothing could be elicited in
favour of the appellant. Version of this witness is supported by
the versions of Sushanto Mandal (PW-3) who is her husband and
again it is supported by medical expert Dr. DS Nareri (PW-1) who
examined the appellant and found him capable to commit
intercourse. These witnesses have been subjected to seaching
cross-examination but they were unshaken in their statements.
7. The statement of the prosecutrix is quite natural, inspire
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.
8. In the present case date of incident is on 08.9.2009 and the
matter was reported to the Police Station on the same day
mentioning the name of the appellant as culprit and his act of rape
9. After reassessing the evidence, this Court has no reason to
hold that the appellant has been falsely implicated. There is no
reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix.
10. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
trial Court recorded a finding of conviction. This Court has no
reason to record a contrary finding.
11. The offence of rape is punishable under Section 376(1) of
IPC and voluntarily causing simple hurt is an offence punishable
under Section 323 IPC for which the trial Court has convicted and
the sentenced the appellant and same is hereby affirmed.
12. Heard on the point of sentence.
The trial Court awarded RI for seven years for the offence
under Section 376(1) of the IPC which cannot be termed as harsh
or unreasonable or disproportionate. Therefore, sentence part is
not liable to be interfered with. As per the report, the appellant has
been released from jail after serving the full jail sentence awarded
to him and after remission granted to him by the jail authorities. In
view of this no further order is required for his arrest.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)