Ramgopal @ Gopal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 894 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                  NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          CRA No. 986 of 2008

     • Ramgopal @ Gopal, S/o. Basant Gandharv, Aged about 19
       years, R/o. Village Andhiyaripara Limha, PS Ratanpur, District
       Bilaspur CG

                                                           ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

     • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Bilaspur

                                                        ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, PL

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Judgment On Board By Virtual Hearing

06/07/2021

Present appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 28th August 2008 passed by the Sessions

Judge, Bilaspur in S.T No. 137/2007 whereby the said Court has

convicted the appellant for commission of the offence under Section

376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine

of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulations.

2. Briefly stated, as per prosecution case, on 17.03.2007, at about

2.00 p.m. father of the prosecutrix asked her to look after the wheat

sown in the field. It is the case of prosecution that at about 3.00 p.m.

his daughter came home weeping and informed him that when she

was in the field the appellant picked her up and slammed on the

ground, she shouted for help but he gagged her mouth and after

removing her clothing, committed rape on her and fled away from the

spot. He informed about the incident to the panchas of the village and

also to the father of the appellant. Thereafter, FIR Ex.P-3 was lodged

at police station Ratanpur against the appellant under Section 376 IPC

After investigation, the trial court convicted and sentenced him as

mentioned above. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against

him under Section 376 IPC.

3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses.

Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section

313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges

levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in

the case. One defence witness was examined by the accused to

establish his defence.

4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court by judgment impugned,

has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in

paragraph 1 of the judgment. Hence the present appeal.

5. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no concrete

evidence in respect of the commission of rape and the hymen of the

prosecutrix was found intact. He submits that the doctor has not given

clear opinion in respect of the commission of the offence. He further

submits that the findings arrived at by the trial court are based on

presumptions and surmises. He contends that in para 8 of the cross-

examination of the doctor (PW-10) she has categorically stated that the

redness and injury sustained by the prosecutrix could be caused by her

also. He submits that there are several contradictions and omissions in

the statement of the prosecution witnesses which have been

overlooked by the trial court. Counsel for the appellant strenuously

contended that keeping in mind the medical report of the prosecutrix,

reflecting her hymen was still intact, would be indicative of the fact that

no intercourse was at all committed on her. According to him, the

prosecutrix has not been able to state specifically about the penetration

part.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the State supports the impugned

judgment and submits that the finding of the trial court is based on

proper appreciation of evidence and therefore is not liable to be

interfered with.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available

on record.

8. In the present case, as per the version of prosecutrix, on the date

of incident, when she was in her fields, the appellant came over there,

caught her and slammed in the field. She has stated that after

removing her clothing, tried to commit rape. On raising cries, one of the

villager namely Suryakant (PW-2) reached there and on seeing him,

the appellant fled away. There is nothing on record to say that the

appellant has been falsely roped with the aforesaid charge. According

to the prosecution case, the incident took place on 17.03.2007 and the

report was also lodged on the same day. As per the report of the

Radiologist (PW-11) Ex.P-16, age of the prosecutrix is said to be about

16 years and at the time of medical examination, she did not find any

mark of injury on her private part.

9. The statement of the prosecutrix seems quite natural and

inspires confidence. In the present case, there is ample corroborative

piece of evidence against the appellant. After going through the

evidence, this Court finds no reason to say that the appellant has been

falsely implicated in the case. There is no reason to disbelieve the

evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. Even the opinion of

the doctor (PW-10) who has medically examined the proseuctrix has

found redness and swelling on her private part and thus, the testimony

of the prosecutrix inspires full confidence and the Sessions Judge after

evaluating the evidence has rightly placed reliance on her testimony

and therefore the findings recorded by the trial court is hereby affirmed.

The appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby

dismissed.

10. As per the report of jail authorities, the appellant has suffered the

full jail term and released from jail, therefore no further order for his

arrest, etc. is required.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

suguna