Aatmaram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1148 Chatt

                                                                            NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   CRA No. 180 of 2016

   • Aatmaram Sahu S/o Bodhi Ram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village
     Dhanaura, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                 ---- Appellant

                                      Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
     Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                              ---- Respondent

For Appellant                  :            Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, Advocate.
For Respondent/State           :            Mr. Akash Pandey, P.L.



                Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                             Judgment on Board
14/07/2021

1. By the impugned judgment dated 27/07/2015 passed in S.T. No.

09/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bemetara, District

Bemetara (C.G.), the Appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part-II of the IPC and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay

fine of Rs. 2,000/-, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, and under

Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- respectively,

with default stipulations.

2. In this case, prosecutrix (PW-1) is aged about 12 years. The

Appellant is father of the prosecutrix. According to the case of prosecution, mother of prosecutrix left the prosecutrix from her

childhood and since then she was residing with her uncle Roopchand

Sahu (PW-4). After marriage of Roopchand Sahu, the Appellant taken

the prosecutrix with him and since then she was residing with her

father/Appellant. On 21.09.2014, the prosecutrix lodged a report in

Police Station Nandghat Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) alleging therein that

between 12.05.2014 to 19.09.2014, the Appellant five times

committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and threatened her for

life to not disclose the incident to anyone. On 19.09.2014 also, the

Appellant did the same, on being fed up, the prosecutrix narrated the

incident to her uncles Bhikhamchand Sahu (PW-2) and Roopchand

Sahu (PW-4) and thereafter lodged the said report against the

Appellant. On the basis of report made by the prosecutrix, offence

has been registered against the Appellant. The prosecutrix was

medically examined by Dr. Anamika Minj (PW-13) and her report is

Ex. P-10. Later on statement of the 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

15 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 there being any clinching and reliable evidence available on record,

the Trial Court has convicted the Appellant. He further submits that the

statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable because there is sufficient

evidence available on record which shows that there was a previous

enmity between the Appellant and Roopchand (PW-4) due to which

Roopchand (PW-4) provoked the prosecutrix and she lodged a false

and fabricated report against the Appellant but, the Trial Court has not

appreciated this fact and wrongly convicted the Appellant, therefore,

his conviction 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, at the time of incident she was aged about

12 years and mother of the prosecutrix left her from her childhood

since then she was residing with her uncle Roopchand Sahu (PW-4).

There is also no dispute on the point that after marriage of Roopchand

Sahu (PW-4), the Appellant had taken the prosecutrix with him and

since then she was residing with the Appellant. With regard to the

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

deposed that when she was residing with the Appellant at that time the

Appellant five times committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and

also threatened her for life. She further deposed that she narrated the

entire incident to her uncles namely Bhikhamchand Sahu (PW-2) and Roopchand Sahu (PW-4) and thereafter lodged a report against the

Appellant. The above statement of this witness is duly corroborated by

Bhikhamchand Sahu (PW-2) and Roopchand Sahu (PW-4). All the

above witnesses remain firmed during their cross-examination.

Though from the admission made by Roopchand Sahu (PW-4) that

there was some dispute taken place between him and the Appellant.

But, I do not found any substance with regard to the argument

advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant that Roopchand Sahu

(PW-4) provoked the prosecutrix and she lodged a report against the

Appellant. There is nothing on record on the basis of which statement

of the prosecutrix can be disbelieved.

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