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)
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station Berla,
Distt. Durg (CG)
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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.
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)