Chattisgarh High Court
Dube Badi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 June, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 738 of 2015
• Dube Badi S/o Makam Ram Badi Aged About 60 Years R/o Village
Bathantoli, Kharpani, Thana Kansabel, Civil And Rev. Distt. Jashpur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
11/06/2021
1. By the impugned judgment dated 19/03/2014 passed in S.T. No.
105/2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jashpur,
District Jashpur (C.G.), the Appellant has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and to
pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default stipulation.
2. According to the case of prosecution, the prosecutrix is polio
disabled. On 02.07.2017 at about 7 PM, when the prosecutrix was
going towards her uncle's house and when she reached near water
boring, the Appellant came there and committed forcible sexual
intercourse with her. Since, the prosecutrix is polio disabled,
therefore, she was unable to resist. After the incident, the prosecutrix
narrated the entire story to her father Sawan Ram (PW-3) and brother
Remiyas (PW-2) thereafter she lodged an FIR against the Appellant
vide Ex. P-1. 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 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. A certificate of incarceration sent by the Jail Superintendent, Central
Jail, Ambikapur Surguja (C.G.) would mention that the Appellant has
undergone the entire jail sentence imposed upon him by the Trial
Court and already released from jail on 17.04.2020.
5. 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
prosecutrix and other witnesses and by ignoring these facts the Trial
Court has wrongly convicted the Appellant.
6. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the State and perused
the record to assess the correctness of the impugned judgment of
conviction.
7. In her Court statement the prosecutrix (PW-1) who is a polio disabled
lady supported the entire case of prosecution and deposed according
to the case of prosecution and she remains firmed during her cross-
examination. There is nothing on record on the basis of which her
statement can be disbelieved. Immediately after the incident, the
prosecutrix narrated the entire story to her father Sawan Ram (PW-3)
and brother Remiyas (PW-2). Both father and brother of the
prosecutrix have also supported the statement of the prosecutrix.
Medical evidence of the prosecutrix also supported the prosecution
case.
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
