Narayan Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1103 Chatt

                                                                             NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              Cr.A. No. 1648 of 2017

   • Narayan Nishad, S/o Shri Govind Nishad, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
     Village Gureda, P.S. Gundardehi, District Balod, Civil And Revenue
     District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                     ---- Appellant

                                     Versus

   • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gunderdehi, District Balod,
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                                 ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board

13/07/2021

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated

18/09/2017 passed in Special Criminal Case POCSO No.78/2016 by

the Sessions Judge (In-charge F.T.C.), Balod, District - Balod, (C.G.)

wherein appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

Conviction Sentence

U/s 376(2)(i) of the I.P.C. read R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with Section 5(M)/6 of the with default stipulations.

POCSO Act

2. In the present case, prosecutrix (PW-1) is a minor girl aged about 5

years. On the date of incident i.e. 29.11.2016 at about 11:20 am,

prosecutrix went to Anganbadi with her friend. During recess period,

when she was playing with her friend, appellant called her saying that

he would give her jam and took her to his house. Thereafter, appellant

committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl/prosecutrix in his

house. At that time, prosecutrix was shouting due to pain. It is further

alleged that, thereafter, appellant left her out and warned her not to

disclose the said facts to anyone and told her to go back to Anganbadi.

The matter was reported by mother of the prosecutrix namely Bedbai

(PW-2) vide Ex.P-4. Victim girl/prosecutrix was medically examined by

Dr. Smt. Prabha Burman (PW-6). Her report is Ex.P-10. Statement of

prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

To prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, prosecution has examined

as many as 10 witnesses. No defence witness has been examined.

Statement of appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded,

wherein accused/appellant has pleaded his innocence and false

implication in the matter.

3. After completion of trial, the trial Court framed the charges and

convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of

this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that

appellant is innocent and is falsely implicated in the present case. He

further submits that trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant

without there being sufficient and clinching evidence against him. There are material contradictions and omissions occurred in the

statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and Bedbai (PW-2) and trial Court

has failed to appreciate this fact. Thus, conviction of the appellant is

not sustainable.

5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the

record and gone through the statements of the witnesses and other

material available on record minutely.

6. There is no dispute on the point that at the time of alleged incident,

age of the victim girl/prosecutrix (PW-1) was about 5 years. With

regard to the alleged incident, prosecutrix in her Court statement has

deposed that at the time of incident, appellant called her saying that he

would give her jam, then she went to the house of the appellant where

appellant removed her underwear and inserted his penis in her vagina.

According to this witness, she was bearing pain and was shouting.

Later on, prosecutrix narrated the incident to her father also. Statement

of prosecutrix was duly corroborated by her mother Bedbai (PW-2).

Both the above witnesses remained firm during cross-examination.

There is nothing on there statement on the basis of which it can be

said that there was any dispute between both the parties. Thus, in the

present case, there is no possibility of falsely implicating the appellant.

Apart from this, from the medical report of the victim girl/prosecutrix, it

is well-established that sexual intercourse has been committed with

the prosecutrix.

7. On a minute examination of the evidence on record, and looking to the

statements of the above witnesses, it is clear that there is sufficient

evidence against the appellant to hold him guilty. In my considered view, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.

8. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash