Dhansay @ Bunnu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 711 Chatt

                                                                              NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                    CRA No. 51 of 2016

   • Dhansay @ Bunnu, S/o Santram Kenwat, Aged about 27 Years, R/o Village
     Turkindih, Chouki Giroudpuri, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Revenue-Civil Baloda
     Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                       ---- Appellant

                                      Versus

   • State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Balod Bazar, District Baloda
     Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                    ---- Respondent

For Appellant                   :            Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent/State            :            Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G.



                 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                              Judgment on Board
29/06/2021

1. By the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2015 passed in Sessions

Trial No. 67/2013 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,

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

punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years,

and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year

and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- respectively, with default stipulations.

2. According to the case of prosecution, prosecutrix (PW-6) is a blind

lady. On the date of incident, when she was in her house, the

Appellant entered there and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, due to which she got pregnant. Since, the Appellant has

threatened her for life, therefore, she did not disclose the incident to

anyone and when her pregnancy was visible then she revealed about

the incident to her father. Thereafter, the village meeting was

conducted wherein the entire incident was disclosed. Later on, the

matter was reported in concerned Police Station by father of the

prosecutrix. 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. Trial Court has framed the

charges. To prove the guilt of the Appellant, the prosecution has

examined as many as 9 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, Raipur District Raipur (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 02.03.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that without there being any

clinching and reliable evidence available on record, the Trial Court has

convicted the Appellant. There are material contradictions and

omissions occurred in the statements of the prosecutrix and other

witnesses and by ignoring these facts, the Trial Court has wrongly

convicted the Appellant, therefore, conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable.

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. Prosecutrix (PW-6) in her Court statement supported the entire case of

prosecution and deposed that on the date of incident at night when

she was alone in her house at that time the Appellant entered in her

house and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Since, the

Appellant has threatened her for life, therefore, she did not disclose

the incident to anyone and when her pregnancy was visible then she

revealed about the incident to her father. During cross-examination,

this witness remain firmed. Father of the prosecutrix and other

witnesses of the case who were present in the village meeting, also

supported the case of prosecution. However, there are some

contradictions and omissions occurred in their statements, but they are

not material.

8. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial

Court has rightly convicted the Appellant. The finding of the Trial Court

is accordance with the evidence available on record.

9. I do not found any merit in this Appeal. Accordingly, the same is liable

to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Vasant/shubham