Ishawar Satnami vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 837 Chatt

                                                                            NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  CRA No. 1190 of 2015

   • Ishawar Satnami, S/o Sukalu Satnami, Aged about 36 years, R/o Village -
     Girdharikapa, Chowki, Damapur, Police Station Kunda, District-
     Kabirdham Kawardha (C.G.).

                                                                     ---- Appellant

                                     Versus

   • State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station- Kunda, District
     Kabirdham (C.G.).

                                                                 ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Judgment on Board 05/07/2021

1. By the impugned judgment dated 03.09.2015 passed in Sessions

Case No. 20/2015 by the learned Upper Sessions Judge (F.T.C.),

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

punishable under Sections 376(ठ) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code

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

pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for 01 year, and to

pay fine of Rs. 500/- respectively, with default stipulations.

2. According to the case of prosecution, father of the prosecutrix namely

Pekhan Lal Kurre (PW-1) lodged a written report vide (Ex.P/1) in Police Station Kunda, District Kabirdham alleging therein that his

daughter aged about 17 years, who is a handicapped girl and

suffering from Epilepsia. On 26.01.2015 at about 12:30 PM when her

daughter gone towards a field at village- Girdharikapa at that time the

Appellant reached there and took her forcibly to other place by

dragging her, committed marpeet with her and thereafter committed

forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix

informed her parents about the incident, on the basis of said report,

offence has been registered against the Appellant. Later on

statements of the prosecutrix and witnesses 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 11

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 for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has

wrongly convicted by the Trial Court without there being any sufficient

and reliable evidence available on record. There are material

contradiction and omission occurred in the statement of the prosecutrix

and other witnesses and by ignoring these facts, the trial Court has

wrongly convicted the Appellant. Thus, conviction of the Appellant is

not sustainable.

5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal and

supported the impugned judgment.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and

perused the record minutely. I have also gone through the statements

of the witnesses.

7. In her Court statement, prosecutrix (PW-2) deposed that at the time of

incident when she was in a field at that time the Appellant reached

there, caught hold her hands and removed her panty when she tried to

scream, the Appellant thrusted a piece of cotton in her mouth.

According to this witness, after the incident she returned to her home

and narrated the entire incident to her parents. After declaring hostile,

on being asked by the Trial Court, the prosecutrix deposed that the

Appellant has not inserted his private part in her private part. On being

asked by the prosecution, this witness deposed that the Appellant has

inserted his private part in her private part. Later on, on being asked by

the Trial Court that which of the said two statements was correct then

she replied that the Appellant has inserted his private part in her

private part. The said statement has not been rebutted during her

cross-examination. Father of the prosecutrix namely Pekhan Lal Kurre

(PW-1) deposed that immediately after the incident, the prosecutrix

returned to house and narrated that the Appellant has committed

forcible sexual intercourse with her. The above statement of this

witness has also not been duly rebutted during his cross-examination.

Other witnesses i.e. Kaliram (PW-4) and Baisakhu (PW-5) also

deposed that immediately after the incident, the prosecutrix told the

incident to them. Medical report of the prosecutrix also shows abrasions on her chest and thigh.

8. 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 Vasant/shubham