Chattisgarh High Court
Raju @ Suraj vs The State Of M.P on 1 October, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 01/09/2021
Order Delivered on 01/10/2021
CRA No. 2579 of 2000
Raju @ Suraj S/o Johan Satnam aged about 30 years, R/o
Ghothiya, P.S. Khairagarh, District-Rajnandgaon, M.P. (Now C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. (Now C.G.), Through : Police Station - Khairagarh,
District- Rajnandgaon, M.P. (Now C.G.).
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. J.A. Lohani, Adv.
For State/Respondent : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, PL.
For Complainant : Mr. B.M. Roy, Adv.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C A V Order
Date : 01/10/2021
1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2000 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District-Rajnandgaon,
M.P. (Now C.G.), in S.T. No. 115/2000 whereby, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under :-
Conviction Sentence
R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in
U/s 376 of IPC
default of fine additional R.I. for 6 months.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.03.2000, at about 11:00
O'clock, the prosecutrix, went to the fields to attend the natures call.
After getting ready to back rid of natures call, at that time the accused
came from behind grabbed her and forcefully committed rape after
threatening to kill her by filling her mouth with cloth. Thereafter, she
came home and told her husband and the elders of the village about
the incident. FIR Ex.-P/1 was lodged by the prosecutrix at police station.
After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed before the trial
judge and charges were framed.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant
was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied
the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and
false implication in the case.
4. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence the trial
Court held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused
under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.
Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to law and facts
available on record. He next submits that the impugned judgment is
based upon conjunctures and surmises as there is no reliable evidence
against the appellant. He also submits that the trial Court did not
appreciate the oral and documentary evidence, appellant is convicted
on the basis of insufficient and adverse evidence. Prosecution case is
full of contradictions and omissions and is not supported by the medical
evidence. He lastly submits that the prosecutrix has deposed on
05.07.2021 that a compromise has been taken place between the
appellant and the prosecutrix, she has also filed an affidavit before this
Court and application for permission to compound the pending case
under Section 320(5) r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned
judgment and conviction is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for
the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Punjab reported in (2011) 13 SCC 705 and on the judgment of this
Court passed in CRA No. 273 of 1999 dated 27.07.2017 in the
matter of Saul @ Sholley vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now
C.G.).
6. On the other hand, State counsel supports the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
7. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment.
8. During the appeal prosecutrix filed an application for
compounding the offence and in her deposition she has stated that
during pendency of the instant appeal they have amicably settled their
dispute and she does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings
against the appellant, as they have already entered into compromise.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs. State
of Punjab and the order of this High Court in CRA No. 273 of 1999 in the
matter of Saul @ Sholley Vs. State of M.P. (Now C.G.), has modified the
sentence. In the present case, keeping in view the fact that the incident
had taken place in the year 2000, and thereby more than 21 years have
rolled by since then, the appellant and the prosecutrix are now middle
aged persons and statement of the prosecutrix shows that she wants to
end the dispute and have already entered into a compromise, the
appellant has already suffered the jail sentence of more than 10
months, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances,
following the principle in case of Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Punjab reported in (2011) 13 SCC 705, I deem it proper to hold the
sentence of the appellant as undergone. The judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 30.09.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Khairagarh, Sessions Division - Rajnandgaon in S.T. No. 115/2000 is
modified to the above extent.
10. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
H.L. Sahu
