Chattisgarh High Court
Narendra Rajak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 August, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1168 of 2015
• Narendra Rajak S/o Ratiram Aged About 21 Years R/o Village
Mawaigudapara, Police Station Bhanpuri, Civil And Rev. Distt. Bastar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Bhanpuri, Civil And Rev. Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Ms. CK Navrang, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
16/08/2021
1. By the impugned judgment dated 08/07/2015 passed in Special
Session Case No. 17/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge(FTC) Bastar place Jagdalpur(C.G.), the Appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(N) & 324
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years, and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- and rigorous
imprisonment for 1 year, and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- respectively, with
default stipulations. All the jail sentences to run concurrently.
2. In this case, at the relevant time, age of the prosecutrix was about 17
years. According to the entries of Dakhil Kharij Panji i.e. Ex. P-2, her
date of birth is 09.10.1997. On 05.04.2015, the prosecutrix lodged a
report vide Ex.P-8, alleging therein that prior 3-4 years of lodging FIR,
when she was studying in class 6th, the Appellant on the pretext of
marriage used to committed sexual intercourse with her. On
12.02.2015 also, the Appellant did the same thereafter he made an
allegation upon the prosecutrix that she have love affair with another
boy of her village and on this point he started quarreling with her and
with intention of murder, he poured kerosene oil on her and set her on
fire which she extinguished with water. She underwent treatment at
hospital. Later on a village meeting was also held thereafter the
matter was reported by the prosecutrix. On the basis of said report,
offence has been registered against the Appellant. The prosecutrix
was medically examined by Dr. Arpita (PW-12) her report is Ex. P-23.
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 12 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. 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. She further
submits that from the statement of the prosecutrix, it is well established
that she was a consenting party in the alleged act and she herself
developed physical relationship with the Appellant on her own will.
With regard to her age, there is no conclusive evidence available on
record which can show that at the relevant time, her age was below 18
years, therefore, conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable.
5. On the contrary, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposed the
appeal and supported the impugned judgment of conviction.
6. 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.
7. In her Court statement prosecutrix (PW-4) deposed according to the
case of prosecution, she categorically stated that prior 3-4 years of
lodging FIR, the Appellant used to committed sexual intercourse with
her. According to this witness, when she was studying in class 6 th, the
Appellant called her behind his house and on the first time he
committed sexual intercourse with her and since then he used to
committed sexual intercourse with her. She further deposed that prior
2-3 months of lodging FIR, when she went to the house of the
Appellant, the Appellant made an allegation upon her that she have
love affair with another boy of her village and on this point he started
quarreling with her and poured kerosene oil on her stomach and set
her on fire which she extinguished with water. According to this witness
a village meeting was also held wherein she disclosed about the
above incident and thereafter she reported the matter in concerned
Police Station. The above statement of this witness not duly rebutted
during her cross-examination. Virtually, in Para 15 of her cross-
examination, it was suggested before her that with her own consent
the physical relationship was developed between her and the
Appellant, wherein, she has admitted this fact. Thus, from the
statement of prosecutrix, it is well established that there was a physical
relationship between the Appellant and the prosecutrix and the said
physical relationship was developed prior to 3-4 years of lodging FIR.
8. With regard to the age of the prosecutrix, according to Dakhil Kharij
Panji, her date of birth is 09.10.1997, in her Court statement, she
deposed that when she was in class 6th, since then the Appellant used
to committed sexual intercourse with her and this statement is not duly
rebutted during her cross-examination. Thus, it is well established that
on the first time, when the Appellant had committed sexual intercourse
with the prosecutrix, she would be studied in class 6-7 th. Thus, if the
matter is of consent, even then it is not a legal consent.
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
