Naresh Kumar Pudo vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1767 Chatt

                                                                             NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                    CRA No. 690 of 2017

   • Naresh Kumar Pudo S/o Duklu Ram Pudo, Aged About 22 Years R/o
     Village Jakke, Police Station Khadgaon, District Rajnandgaon,
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                                      ---- Appellant

                                       Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Khadgan, District
     Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                 ---- Respondent

For Appellant                   :             Mr. BL Dembra, Advocate.
For Respondent/State            :             Mr. Akhtar Hussain, P.L.



                Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                             Judgment on Board
13/08/2021

1. By the impugned judgment dated 22/02/2017 passed in S.T. No.

91/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(FTC)

Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), the Appellant has been

convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 342 & 376

of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 5 years, and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, rigorous

imprisonment for 6 months, and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and rigorous

imprisonment for 7 years, and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- respectively,

with default stipulations. All the jail sentences to run concurrently.

2. According to the prosecution story, on intervening night of

14.08.2015-15.08.2015 at around 1:30 AM, when the prosecutrix was sleeping in her home along with her husband allegedly, the Appellant

entered in her house and took the prosecutrix towards court yard and

committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, on her screaming, her

husband came to the spot and on seeing her husband, the Appellant

fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the matter was reported. On the

basis of above, offence has been registered against the Appellant.

Later on statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses were

recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of

investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Trial Court has framed the

charges. To prove the guilt of the Appellant, the prosecution has

examined as many as 16 witnesses. No defense witness has been

examined. Statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and

false implication in the matter.

3. After trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the Appellant as

mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

4. A certificate of incarceration sent by the Jail Superintendent, Central

Jail, Durg District Durg (C.G.) dated 09.08.2021 would mention that

the Appellant has undergone the entire jail sentence imposed upon

him by the Trial Court and already released from jail on 12.05.2021.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that the

Appellant has wrongly convicted by the Trial Court without there being

any clinching and reliable evidence available on record. He further

submits that from the statement of the prosecutrix, it appears that she

was a consenting party in the alleged act and since the incident was

seen by her husband, therefore, a false report has been lodged by the prosecutrix against the Appellant. Hence, his conviction is not

sustainable.

6. On the contrary, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposed the

appeal and supported the impugned judgment of conviction.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the record to assess the correctness of the impugned judgment of

conviction. I have also gone through the statements of the witnesses.

8. In her Court statement prosecutrix (PW-6) deposed that on the date of

incident when she was sleeping in her home along with her husband,

the Appellant entered in her house and took her to court yard by

locking her room from outside and committed forcible sexual

intercourse with her and when she screamed, her husband came to

the spot and on seeing her husband, the Appellant fled away from the

spot. She further deposed that in this regard, a village meeting was

also conducted wherein the Appellant was not present, thereafter, she

lodged a report against the Appellant in concerned Police Station.

During cross-examination, this witness remain firmed. On the point of

alleged incident, there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can

be said that there was a previous enmity between the Appellant and

the prosecutrix, therefore, the Appellant has falsely been implicated by

the prosecutrix, I do not found any substance in this regard. The

statement of the prosecutrix is duly corroborated by her husband

Bhadruram (PW-10). Other prosecution witnesses Budaru Ram (PW-

1), Bishram Singh (PW-2), Ramprasad (PW-3), Shivlal (PW-4), Talwar

Singh (PW-5) and Sannuram (PW-9) also supported the statement of

the prosecutrix and deposed that with regard to the alleged incident, a village meeting was also conducted.

9. From the evidence available on record and looking to the entire case

of prosecution there is sufficient evidence available on record against

the Appellant and the crime has duly proved against him. Thus, the

learned trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant.

10. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and the same is liable to be

and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham