Chait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2312 Chatt

                             1

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      CRA No. 1076 of 2002
• Chait Ram

                                                   ---- Appellant

                            Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh

                                              -----Respondent

___________________________________________________

Post for pronouncement of the judgment on 14.09.2021

___ Sd/-_______ JUDGE

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Judgment reserved on : 06.07.2021

Judgment delivered on : 14.09.2021

CRA No. 1076 of 2002

• Chaitram S/o. Samaru Kewat, Aged 39 years, Residing at Village Jewra, PS Pamgarh, district Janjgir-champa (CG)

---- Appellant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Pamgarh district Janjgir-Champa CG

---- Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Sudhir Bajpai and Shri S.V.Purohit, Advocates For Respondent/State : Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahre, PL

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Judgment

14/09/2021

This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 24.09.2002

passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir

District Janjgir-Champa (CG) in S.T. No. 171/99 convicting the

accused/appellant under Section 376 (1) IPC sentencing him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 100 plus

default stipulation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.01.1999, FIR (Ex.P-2) was

lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-5), alleging that on 13.01.1999, when

she was all alone in the house, at about 8.00 p.m. the

accused/appellant jumped from the wall of the backyard, came inside

and after throwing her on the floor, removed her as well as his clothing,

committed forcible sexual intercourse and ran away. She raised alarm

but no one came to help. Thereafter in the morning she went to her

parents' house and when his father returned after 2-3 days, her mother

informed him and then the report was lodged at the police station

Pamgarh. Prosecutrix was medically examined on 24.01.1999 by Dr.

Smt. Lalita Minj (PW-11) vide Ex. P-1 and she opined that no definite

opinion can be given with regard to rape. After investigation, charge

sheet was filed on 12.04.1999 under Section 376 IPC and accordingly

charges were framed.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has

examined 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also

recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the

charge leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false

implication in the case.

4. After hearing the parties, trial Court has convicted and

sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para one of this

judgment. Hence the present appeal.

5. Contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the report was

lodged with unexplained delay of 10 days and the medical evidence

does not corroborate the version of the prosecutrix. He referred to the

evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) as well as the medical evidence to

support his submission that no offence of rape as such has been

committed on the prosecutrix. Dr. Smt. Lalita Toppo (PW-4) who

conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix however, has

stated that there was no sign of injury found on the prosecutrix and no

definite opinion can be given about rape. He further submits that the

prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. On the other hand State counsel supports the impugned

judgment and submits that the conviction of the accused/appellant is in

accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.

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

on record.

8. Prosecutrix (PW-5) has stated in para 2 of her statement that the

accused entered her house and committed forcible sexual intercourse

with her and when she raised alarm, none of them had come. She has

stated that though Jeevrakhan was present in the house but he also

did not come to rescue her. In para 3, she has stated that on the next

day she informed about the incident to the Milkman Fandu (PW-1) and

also to her mother. She has stated that as her father was not at home,

she could not inform him. It is thus clear from Ex.P-2 that the date of

incident is 13.01.99 (Ex.P-2) and the date of lodging FIR is 23.01.99

i.e. after 10 days of the incident. Dr. Lalita Toppo (PW-4) has stated

that she examined the prosecutrix on 24.01.99 and opined that no

external or internal injuries were found on the person of the

prosecutrix. She has stated that no definite opinion can be given about

rape.

Fandu (PW-1) has stated that he was informed by the prosecutrix that

the appellant has committed rape on her. He has stated that he asked

her to inform the Kotwar. Geeta Bai (PW-3) mother of the prosecutrix

has stated that the prosecutrix has informed about the incident in the

morning and then they both went to the police station and reported the

matter.

9. In defence, the appellant suggested that there was previous

enmity with his wife and the complainant/prosecutrix. It has been

stated by the prosecutrix that the delay in lodging the FIR occurred as

her father was not at home and had gone to another village and it was

only when her father came, the report was lodged. The prosecutrix

remained firm and nothing could be elicited from her. Reliance has

been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of

Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 May,

1983 reported in 1983 (3) SCC 217 , wherein it has been held that :

6. It is well settled law that if the version of the prosecutrix is believed, basic truth in her evidence is ascertainable and if it is found to be credible and consistent, the same would form the basis of conviction. Corroboration is not a sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the "probabilities factor" does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration, except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. When a grown up and married woman gives evidence on oath in court that she was raped, it is not the proper judicial approach to

disbelieved her outright."

10. The prosecutrix has deposed that on the date of incident, at

night, accused entered his house and committed rape on her.

Prosecutrix has denied the fact that some quarrel took place between

them and therefore a false allegation has been levelled against the

appellant but it has been mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P-2) and the

Investigation Officer Jayendra Singh (PW-11) has also stated in his

examination-in-chief that the report was written by him as narrated by

her. This witness has admitted in his deposition that the date of

incident was 13.01.1999 and report was lodged on 23.01.99. Dr. (Smt.)

Lalita Toppo (PW-4) has medically examined the prosecutrix and

opined that no definite opinion can be given with regard to rape. Thus,

the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution.

The evidence of the prosecutrix and her mother (PW-3) are unreliable

and untrustworthy inasmuch as they are not credible witnesses. Their

evidence is full of omissions and contradictions.

11. Defence witness Nandjharokha (DW-1) has stated in his

evidence that appellant has informed him that his wife used to clean

utensils in the house of the prosecutrix and she was not paid for the

same since four months and has falsely implicated him in the crime in

question. Moreover, no satisfactory explanation has been given by the

prosecutrix for the delayed FIR. Geeta Bai (PW-3) mother of the

prosecutrix has stated in her cross-examination at para 6 that the

incident was not known to the villagers. The prosecution case is based

on the material available on record which does not seem true. After

going through the entire material on record it is clear that the

prosecutrix apparently had moved to seek revenge from the appellant.

The testimony of the prosecutrix in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case needs to be discarded, since her testimony

is a result of seeking revenge from the accused and as her evidenceis

not free from blemish. The principles have been explained by the

Apex court in the matter of Dola @ Dolagobinda Pradhan Vs The

State Of Odisha reported in 2018 Vol. 18 SCC 695. The Trial Court

has convicted the appellant without considering the aforementioned factors

in their proper perspective. The testimony of the victim is full of

inconsistencies and does not find support from any other evidence

whatsoever. Moreover, the evidence of the informant/victim is inconsistent

and self-destructive at different places. It is noticeable that the medical

record and the Doctor's evidence do not specify whether there were any

signs of forcible sexual intercourse. It seems that the First Information

Report was lodged with false allegations to extract revenge from the

appellant.

12. Having regard to the totality of the material on record it is not

possible for this Court to agree with the conclusion reached by the

court below. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the

trial court is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled

against him. Appellant is on bail. His bal bonds stand discharged.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

Judge suguna