SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sujit Sarkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh 68 … on 11 December, 2018

1

NAFR

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
Kanker (CG)
—- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station Bande,
Distt. North Bastar Kanker (CG)
—- Respondent
—————————————————————————————-

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
11.12.2018.

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
2

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

mentioned above.

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

matter.

(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

the appeal.

3

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

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
4

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

and assault.

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.

Sd/-

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
JUDGE
Bini

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation