Kapoorchand @ Chhotu Chandraker vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1046 Chatt

                                                                         NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   CRA No. 46 of 2017

   • Kapoorchand @ Chhotu Chandraker S/o Shri Sodhiram Aged About 45
     Years R/o Durga Nagar, Pandari Tarai, Police Station Pandari, Tahsil And
     District Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                  ---- Appellant

                                      Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur,
     District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                              ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

For Respondent/State           :           Mr. Akash Pandey, P.L.



                Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                             Judgment on Board
12/07/2021

1. By the impugned judgment dated 07/12/2016 passed in Special S.T.

No. 726/2015 by the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act,

Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.), the Appellant has been convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 376, R/w Section 511 of the IPC

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and to

pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, under Section 294, under Section 506 Part-II

& 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3 months, and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 7/8 R/w

Section 18 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 3 years, and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- respectively,

with default stipulations.

2. In this case, the Appellant is father of the prosecutrix. According to the

case of prosecution on 10.02.2015 at around 10 PM, when mother of

the prosecutrix was not in her home, the Appellant commit sexual

harassment with the prosecutrix and also commit attempt to rape and

when she objected, the Appellant assaulted her due to which she

sustained injuries on her body. She narrated the entire incident to her

mother Meera (PW-2). Thereafter, a written report was submitted by

the prosecutrix. On the basis of said report, offence has been

registered against the Appellant. Later on statement of the prosecutrix

and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After

completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the Trial

Court has framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the Appellant, the

prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. No defense

witness has been examined by the Appellant. 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 without

being any clinching and reliable evidence available on record the Trial

Court has convicted the Appellant. He further submits that there are

material contradiction and omissions occurred in the statement of the

witnesses, therefore, their statements are not reliable. From the

evidence available on record, it is well established that there was a

previous dispute between the Appellant, prosecutrix and her mother,

therefore, there is a possibility of false implication of Appellant in the present case. The Counsel lastly submits that from the medical report

also, there was no injury found on private part of the prosecutrix,

therefore, conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable.

5. 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. There is no dispute on the point that prosecutrix (PW-1) is a real

daughter of the Appellant and Meera (PW-2) is a wife of the Appellant.

There is also no dispute on the point that at the time of alleged

incident, the prosecutrix was aged about 15 years. With regard to the

incident, in her Court statement prosecutrix (PW-1) supported the

entire case of prosecution and categorically stated that at the time of

incident, the Appellant in drunken condition abused her and tried to

commit rape upon her, she further stated that the Appellant had also

torn her clothes and took off her undergarments too. This witness

remain firmed during her cross-examination. Her statement is duly

corroborated by her mother Meera (PW-2), she also deposed that on

the date of incident when she reached her home, she saw that the

prosecutrix was fell down in unconscious condition and when she

became conscious, she narrated the incident to her. This witness is

also remain firmed during her cross-examination though there are

some material contradiction and omissions occurred in her statement,

but they are not material.

8. 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

Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant.

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

and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham