Ramesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3813 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                         NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            CRA No.718 of 2002

                    Judgment reserved on : 20.04.2022

                    Judgment delivered on : 16.06.2022

      Ramesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Nandkumar Gupta, aged about 26 years,
       Occupation House Hold, Hindu, R/o Bhatgaon, Police Station
       Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.)

                                                                  ---- Appellant

                                   Versus

      The State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Batauli, Distt.
       Surguja (C.G.)

                                                                ---- Respondent

For Appellant              Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent             Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. AG



                    Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey

                                 C A V Order

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 25.06.2002 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional

Session Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in ST No.293/1998,

whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

        Sr. No.   Conviction                   Imprisonment

        1.        Section 376 (I) of IPC       RI for 7 years

        2.        Section 342 of IPC           RI for 6 months

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that the prosecutrix lodged an

FIR against the appellant on 14.08.1998 before the Police Station

Batoli, District Sarguja alleging that on 01.08.1998, when she had

gone to Devri Mod, Main Road for taking her mother, the accused

came to her on motorcycle along with his friend and told the

prosecutrix that he would drop her at her home, thereafter he left his

friend in Lalmati and went to Bhatgaon with the prosecutrix, where

they stayed for 2 to 10 days with the prosecutrix in his relative's

house and the accused/appellant committed sexual intercourse with

the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix did not disclose about the same to

any person or her mother. When her mother came there for taking

her home, then she came back to her house and lodged a report

against the appellant. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was sent for

medical examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet

was filed before the JMFC, Ambikapur and charges were framed

against the appellant under Sections 376 and 342 of IPC.

3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution

examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the

accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in

which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the

prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. The

accused/appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and

after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as

mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal has been

preferred by the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix

accompanied the accused/appellant of her own without offering any

protest, she remained with him for about ten days and thus it is

apparent that she was a consenting party to the act of the appellant.

He further submits that the incident took place on 01.08.1998, and on

14.08.1998 the FIR of the incident was lodged, as such, there is 13

days delay in lodging the FIR and the said delay has not been

properly explained by the prosecutrix. Learned counsel also submits

that the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution case in paras 9,

10, 12, 15 & 16 of her cross-examination, which clearly shows that

she was the consenting party to the act of the appellant. He further

submits that as per the prosecution, the appellant caught the

prosecutrix for about 10 days in his relative's house, where he

continuously committed rape with her, but she did not disclose the

incident to anybody, which is highly suspicious. The medical report

also does not support the prosecutrix's version and the doctor did not

give any definite opinion about the rape. The doctor did not find any

external or internal injury on any part of the body of the prosecutrix.

Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence

may be set aside and the appellant be released.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the

prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore,

the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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

available on record.

8. PW-4 - Barpan Bai, mother of the prosecutrix, stated in her

examination-in-chief that "esjh yM+dh us crk;k Fkk fd nkbZ eksyk jes'k gj

HkxkbZl vkSj HkVxkao esa j[khl vkSj eksj laxs xyr dke djhlA."

The prosecutrix (PW-7) is aged about 22 years. She stated in

her examination-in-chief that "ogka ls vkjksih jes'k rFkk mldk lkFkh lqjs'k

eq>s vius ghjksiqd eksVj lkbfdy esa cSBkdj crkSyh ys x;s vkSj crkSyh esa

vkjksih jes'k us lqjs'k dks NksM+ fn;k vkSj eq>ls ;g dgdj dh og eq>s okil

esjs ?kj NksM+ nsxk eq>s fQj vius lkFk ghjksiqd eksVjlkbZfdy esa cSBk dj

HkVxkao ys x;kA " In para 2, she stated that " HkVxkao igqapdj vkjksih jes'k

cl LVS.M ds ikl ,d ukbZ nqdku ds ihNs fLFkr ?kj esa eq>s j[kk] vkjksih jes'k

us esjs lkFk ogka NsM+NkM+ fd;k rFkk xyr dke fd;k] xyr dke ls esjk

eryc 'kkjhfjd laca/k fd;k] vkjksih ml ?kj esa j[ks iyax esa eq>s ysVkdj esjs

lkFk 'kkjhfjd laca/k fd;k FkkA vkjksih jes'k 10 rkjh[k rd eq>s mlh ?kj esa

j[kk Fkk] rFkk izfrfnu esjs lkFk 'kkjhfjd laca/k djrk jgkA " She admitted in

para 9 that "?kVuk fnukad dks tc vkjksih eq>s vius lkFk esjs xkao ls

viuh ghjksiqd xkM+h ls yk jgk Fkk rc yky ekVh ds ikl [kku njksxk

rFkk frokjh eqa'kh viuh eksVjlkbfdy ls tkrs gq, fn[ks FksA " In para 16,

she admitted that ";g lgh gS fd vfHk;qDr tc eq>s ?kVuk fnukad dks

HkVxkao ys tk jgk Fkk rc eSaus dksbZ gYyk ugh fd;kA "

PW-1 Dr. Smt. Snehlata Kujur stated in her examination-in-

chief that "esjh jk; esa og laHkksx dh vknh FkhA rRdky laHkksx ds ckjs esa

dksbZ fuf'pr jk; ugh nh tk ldrh gS". She gave her report vide Ex- P/1.

9. In the instant case, the prosecutrix is a major lady and as per her

examination-in-chief, she went with appellant with her own will and

she also admitted that she did not raise any protest. According to the

evidence of prosecutrix (PW-7), the accused/appellant kept her with

him for about 10 days and during that period, he committed sexual

intercourse with her and the prosecutrix (PW/7) did not resist the act

of the appellant, which is highly suspicious and creates doubt. That

apart, the explanation for delayed FIR (Ex.P/7) was given as 'due to

raining', which this Court does not find it to be satisfactorily. The

prosecutrix (PW-7) has admitted that she stayed with the appellant

for ten days and during her stay with the appellant, she neither

disclosed about the incident to nearby person nor reported the matter

to the police station. Thus, considering the entire statement of the

prosecutrix, the medical evidence available on record as also the

conduct of the prosecutrix, this Court has no hesitation to say that the

prosecutrix was a consenting party to the act of the appellant. In

these circumstances, the appellant is definitely entitled to be

acquitted of the charges leveled against him by extending him benefit

of doubt.

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction of the

accused/appellant under Sections 376(1) and 342 of the IPC and

sentenced imposed thereunder are hereby set aside. He is acquitted

of the said charges by extending him benefit of doubt. The

accused/appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Sd/-

Rajani Dubey Judge

Nirala