Chattisgarh High Court
Tiblu @ Baljit And Ors vs The State Of C.G on 23 June, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.945 of 2002
1. Tiblu @ Baljit, son of Amira Rohidas, aged about 30 years,
2. Sajan, son of Santram Rohidas, aged about 29 years,
Both residents of Village Arda, Police Station Bankimogra, District
Korba, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, District Korba,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate
For Respondent : Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
23.6.2021
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
29.8.2002 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (for brevity 'the PoA Act') and Additional Sessions Judge,
Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.333 of 2000, whereby each of the
Appellants has been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 376(2)(g) of Rigorous Imprisonment for
the Indian Penal Code 10 years and fine of Rs.200
with default stipulation
2. According to the case of prosecution, on 6.7.2000 at about 7:30
p.m., when the prosecutrix (PW4) was returning her house after
completing begging, on the way, the Appellants met her and told
her that they may help her, but she refused for their help.
Thereafter, the Appellants followed her and when she reached near
a canal, Appellant No.1, Tiblu snatched her rice bag and committed
forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, Appellant No.2,
Sajan also committed rape with her. After the incident, she began
to return to her village. At her village, on the way, she found that a
meeting of the villagers was going on. Shyamlal Patel (PW3),
Devnath (PW6), Lalan Yadav (PW7), Satyapal Singh (PW9) and
Nehru Pratap Singh (PW11) were also present in the said meeting.
She complained of the incident to the persons present in the
meeting. She also got a written report (Ex.P11) prepared from the
village Sarpanch and submitted the same in the police station next
day. On the basis of Ex.P11, First Information Report (Ex.P4) was
registered. She was medically examined by Dr. Mrs. R. Dahire
(PW5). Her report is Ex.P6. Statements of the prosecutrix and
other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-
sheet was filed against the Appellants. The Trial Court framed a
charge against them.
3. To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as
15 witnesses. Statements of the Appellants were also recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they
denied the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication. No
witness has been examined in their defence.
4. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced
the Appellants as mentioned in 1st paragraph of this judgment.
Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that without
there being any clinching evidence on record, the Trial Court has
convicted the Appellants. It is further submitted that the statement
of the prosecutrix (PW4) is suspicious. There are material
contradictions and omissions in her statement. It is further
submitted that though immediately after the incident the prosecutrix
made a complaint of the incident in the village meeting, none of the
witnesses who were present in the meeting stated that in the said
meeting the prosecutrix named the rapists. Instead, she stated
about commission of rape with her by 3-4 persons. Therefore also,
the statement of the prosecutrix is suspicious. Thus, the conviction
of the Appellants is not sustainable. The Appellants are entitled to
get benefit of doubt.
6. On the contrary, Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes
the submissions put-forth on behalf of the Appellants and supports
the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the entire material available on record including the
statements of witnesses.
8. As regards the incident, in her Court statement, the prosecutrix
(PW4) stated that at the time of incident, when she was returning
after begging, the Appellants chased her. Thereafter, Appellant
Tiblu brought down her gathari (bale) kept over her head.
Thereafter, Appellant Sajan caught her hand and took her 10-15
steps away and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her
there. She further deposed that thereafter Appellant Tiblu also
made her fall down and committed rape with her. Thereafter, both
the Appellants ran away from there. Thereafter, she returned her
village. At her village, she found that a meeting of the villagers was
going on near the shop of one Thakur. She intimated those
villagers about the incident. Next day, she made a report in the
police station. However, during cross-examination, she admitted
the fact that on the fateful day after return to her house she did not
inform about the incident to her family members. She did not
inform about the incident to her neighbours also and when she
went to take bath at the ghat (bank of the pond), there also she did
not tell about the incident to the ladies taking bath . In paragraph 7
of her cross-examination, she explained that she did not tell about
the incident to her family members due to fear that after telling
about the incident she could be beaten by the family members and
she could also be ousted from home. In paragraph 13 of cross-
examination, she admitted that at the time of incident, she did not
cry and shout, but she requested the Appellants by touching their
feet for not doing any wrong with her. Explaining further, she
deposed that how could she resist two persons and prevent them
from committing rape with her and who would have come there on
her shouting.
9. According to the case of prosecution, while returning after the
incident, during the village meeting, the prosecutrix intimated the
villagers present in the meeting about the incident. Shyamlal Patel
(PW3), Devnath (PW6), Satyapal Singh (PW9) and Nehru Pratap
Singh (PW11), who were present in the said meeting, have
supported the statement of the prosecutrix to the only effect that the
prosecutrix had told in the meeting about commission of rape with
her by 3-4 persons. None of the above four witnesses has stated
that in the said meeting the prosecutrix had told name of any of the
rapists. Therefore, all these four witnesses have been declared
hostile by the prosecution.
10. Dr. Mrs. R. Dahire (PW5) examined the prosecutrix on 8.7.2000.
Her report is Ex.P6. She deposed according to her report that in
the examination of the prosecutrix she found four abrasions.
Abrasions number one and two were found on her back, abrasion
number three was found over right scapula region and abrasion
number four was found over right elbow joint. Ulcers were also
found in the cervix of her uterus. As opined by this witness, those
ulcers could be result of forcible sexual intercourse.
11. On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that in
her Court statement, the prosecutrix (PW4) supported the entire
case of the prosecution and categorically stated that the Appellants
committed forcible sexual intercourse with her one by one. On this
point, she remained firm during her cross-examination. There is
nothing in her cross-examination to establish that there was a
previous enmity between her and the Appellants. No suggestion
was put to her by the defence during cross-examination.
Therefore, possibility of false implication of the Appellants by her
does not appear. Though Shyamlal Patel (PW3), Devnath (PW6),
Satyapal Singh (PW9) and Nehru Pratap Singh (PW11) have not
supported the entire case of the prosecution, they have
categorically stated that during the village meeting the prosecutrix
had come to them and complained of rape with her. If no rape had
been committed with her, she would not have publicly complained
of rape before the villagers sitting in the meeting. Though she did
not tell about the incident to her family members, reason therefor
has been explained by her that it was due to fear of being beaten
and ousted from home. Being a beggar, i.e., a poor woman, her
such fear is natural. Therefore, even if she did not tell about the
incident to her family members, this does not leave any adverse
effect on the case of the prosecution. The medical evidence
available on record also corroborates the case of the prosecution.
Looking to the entire evidence of the prosecution, in my considered
view, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellants.
Therefore, I do not find any substance in this appeal.
12. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
13. The Appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are
cancelled. The Trial Court is directed to take all necessary steps
for completion of the remaining sentence of the Appellants.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
JUDGE
Gopal
