1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.235 of 2011

Toran Chouhan, S/o. Sevaram Chouhan, aged about 23
years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o. Village Bharda (Marda),
Police Station Berla, District Durg (CG)
—- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station Berla,
Distt. Durg (CG)
—- Respondent
—————————————————————————————-

For the appellant : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For the respondent/State: Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer

—————————————————————————————-

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Judgment On Board
06.12.2018.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

28.02.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemtara,

Distt. Durg (CG) in Session Trial No.29/2010 wherein the said

Court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under

Sections 450 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years

and to pay fine of 2000/-; RI for eight years and to pay fine of

R.4000/- with default stipulations with a direction to run the

sentences concurrently.

2. In the present case, prosecutrix is PW-1. As per the

prosecution case, on 11.4.2010 at about 11.00 am, the appellant

entered into the house of the prosecutrix and committed sexual

intercourse with her without her consent and against her will.

Brother of the prosecutrix reached to the spot where the appellant
2

was present. Thereafter the matter was reported, after completion

of 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 Sundari Bai (PW-11), mother of

the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix did not complaint about the sexual

assault, therefore charge levelled against the appellant is not

established.

(ii) As there is no injury found on the body of the

prosecutrix, version of the prosecutrix become doubtful.

(iii) From the evidence in its entity, it appears that it may

be a case of consent, therefore, finding arrived at by the trial Court

is not sustainable.

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.

5. Prosecutrix (PW-4) deposed before the trial Court that the

appellant entered into her house and dragged her to a room

thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her. She explained

the act of the appellant that after removing her undergarment, he

inserted his penis into her vagina. This witness has been

subjected to searching cross-examination, but nothing could be

elicited in favour of the defence.

6. Version of the prosecutrix is supported by the version of

Gopirai Chouhan (PW-2) to whom his son Deepak informed about
3

the incident. This witness was also subjected to cross-

examination but remained unshaken. Version of both these

witnesses is supported by the version of Dr.Jitendra Kumar

Kunjam (PW-9) who examined the appellant and found him

capable to commit sexual intercourse. Again it is supported by

the version of Dr. (Smt.) Vrinda Mandge (PW-19) who examined

the prosecutrix and prepared slide from her vaginal swab.

Underwear of the prosecutrix was seized in the present case and

said underwear and slide were sent to Forensic Science

Laboratory for examination and the report received from the

laboratory confirms presence of spermatozoa which corroborate

the factum of intercourse. Version of direct evidence and medical

evidence are also supported by the FIR (Ex-P/1) which was

lodged on the date of incident itself i.e. 11.4.2010 in which the

appellant has been named as culprit and it is mentioned in the FIR

that he committed rape with the prosecutrix.

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, but in the present case, there is

ample corroborative piece of evidence. There are several factors

which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family

members before coming to the Police Station to lodge the
4

complaint and when the version of the prosecutrix is inspiring

confidence, there is nothing to disbelieve the prosecution case.

8. 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 prosecution.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

Court is of the view that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is

based on proper marshaling of the evidence and this Court has no

reason to record a contrary finding.

10. House trespass in order to commit offence punishable with

imprisonment for life is an offence under Section 450 of IPC and

rape is punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC for which the trial

Court has convicted and the sentenced the appellant and same is

hereby affirmed.

11. Heard on the point of sentence.

The trial Court awarded RI for eight 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.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
JUDGE
Bini