Chattisgarh High Court
Laxmi Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 May, 2022
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.713 of 2001
Judgment Reserved on : 13.4.2022
Judgment Delivered on : 11.5.2022
Laxmi Bai, W/o Kartik Ram Suryavanshi, aged about 21 years, R/o
Kumharpara, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
and
Criminal Appeal No.771 of 2001
1. Aabhas Kumar alias Tappu, son of B. Damodar Mudliyar, aged 18
years, resident of Dua Chawl, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chandan Singh, son of Dayaram Lodhi, aged 32 years, resident of
Pichhor Bus Stand, P.S. Pichhor, District Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh
---- Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant Laxmi Bai : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Advocate
For Appellants Aabhas Kumar and : Shri Shrawan Kumar Chandel,
Chandan Singh Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Deputy
Advocate General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
1. Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are
heard and decided together.
2. Both the appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated
31.7.2001 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in
Sessions Trial No.111 of 2000, whereby the Appellants have been
convicted and sentenced as follows:
Conviction Sentence
All the 3 Appellants
(Laxmi Bai, Aabhas Kumar alias Tappu and Chandan Singh)
Under Section 363 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 4
Indian Penal Code years and fine of Rs.1,000 with
default stipulation
Under Section 366 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 5
Indian Penal Code years and fine of Rs.1,000 with
default stipulation
Under Section 366A of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 5
Indian Penal Code years and fine of Rs.1,000 with
default stipulation
Under Section 372 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 5
Indian Penal Code years and fine of Rs.1,000 with
default stipulation
Additional Conviction of Appellant Chandan Singh
Under Section 193(2) of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 1
Indian Penal Code year and fine of Rs.500 with
default stipulation
Under Section 199 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 2
Indian Penal Code years and fine of Rs.500 with
default stipulation
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that at the time of incident, the victim
girl (PW10) was aged about 14-15 years. Her date of birth is
11.11.1984 and she was studying in 6th standard. On 13.10.1999
at about 10 a.m., the victim went to her school, but she did not
return home till 6 p.m. Her mother Yasmin Begum (PW2) lodged a
missing report of the victim. Later on, the victim was recovered
from the possession of co-accused Shriram Singh (died) on
24.11.1999. Her statement was recorded. Further case of the
prosecution is that the victim was taken to Khongsara by a train by
Appellant Laxmi Bai by alluring her. In the said train, Appellant
Aabhas Kumar also met them. He also accompanied them to
Khongsara. Thereafter, all of them went to Pendra, thereafter to
Delhi and thereafter they went to Jhansi. At Jhansi, Appellants
Aabhas Kumar and Laxmi Bai took the victim to the house of co-
accused Santosh (absconded). Allegedly, Appellants Laxmi Bai
and Aabhas Kumar sold the victim to co-accused Santosh. The
victim stayed at the house of Santosh for about 3-4 days.
Thereafter, co-accused Santosh and Appellants Laxmi Bai and
Aabhas Kumar took the victim to the house of Appellant Chandan
Singh, who was an Advocate by profession. It is further alleged
that Appellant Chandan Singh prepared a forged affidavit of the
victim after changing her name to Rani Patel. Thereafter,
Appellants Chandan Singh, Laxmi Bai and Aabhas Kumar sold the
victim to co-accused Shriram Singh. It is further alleged that
Santosh, Shriram Singh and Aabhas Kumar committed sexual
intercourse with the victim frequently on various occasions. On
completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial
Court framed charges against all the Appellants under Sections
363, 366, 366A and 372 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court
also framed charge under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal
Code against Appellant Aabhas Kumar. The Trial Court also
framed charges under Sections 193(2) and 199 of the Indian Penal
Code against Appellant Chandan Singh. During pendency of the
trial, co-accused Shriram Singh died and co-accused Santosh
absconded.
4. To rope in the accused persons, the prosecution examined as
many as 27 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
the accused persons denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. 1
defence witness, namely, Basant Kumar Singh is examined on
behalf of Appellant Chandan Singh.
5. On completion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment, the Trial
Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned in 2 nd
paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the appeals.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respective Appellants jointly
submitted that the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the Appellants
without there being any clinching and sufficient evidence available
against them on record. There is no clinching evidence on record
on the basis of which it could be said that the victim was below 18
years of age. From the conduct of the victim, it appears that she
was a consenting party and she herself left her house at her own
will and visited various places along with Appellants Laxmi Bai and
Aabhas Kumar. It was further argued that there are material
contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses.
The victim and her mother have developed their statements.
Therefore, their statements are not reliable. Learned Counsel
appearing for Appellant Chandan Singh additionally argued that
without there being any evidence available on record against
Appellant Chandan Singh, he has been convicted for the offences
under Sections 363, 366, 366A of the Indian Penal Code. With
regard to the other offences under Sections 372, 193(2) and 199 of
the Indian Penal Code, there is no clinching evidence available on
record against Appellant Chandan Singh. Thus, his conviction for
the offences under Sections 372, 193(2) and 199 of the Indian
Penal Code is also not sustainable.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/State opposed the
arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants.
8. I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and
perused the record of the Trial Court minutely.
9. As regards age of the victim, according to the case of prosecution,
at the time of incident, she was aged about 14-15 years. Yasmin
Begum (PW2), mother of the victim categorically deposed that at
the time of incident, the victim was studying in 6 th standard and her
date of birth is 11.11.1984. In paragraph 17 of her cross-
examination, she further deposed that her marriage was
solemnised in the year 1983 and after 1 year of her marriage, the
victim was born. She further deposed that at the time of admission
in the school also, the victim was aged about 6 years. The above
statement of this witness is not duly rebutted during her cross-
examination. According to the entries of Dakhil-Kharij Panji
(Ex.P21), the date of birth of the victim is 11.11.1984. Dr. Smt. V.
Jain (PW16), who examined the victim, also deposed that at the
time of examination, age of the victim was between 14 and 16
years. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution
with regard to the age of the victim, it is well established that at the
time of incident, the victim was below 16 years of age. Therefore,
the finding of the Trial Court in this regard is in accordance with the
evidence available on record. I do not find any perversity in the
finding of the Trial Court in this regard.
10. With regard to the incident, the victim (PW10), in her Court
statement, deposed that before 4-5 days of the incident, Appellant
Laxmi Bai met her and told that they will go to Khongsara for
roaming and will return in the evening itself. On her telling, she
took her some clothes, went out of her house and went way along
with Appellant Laxmi Bai. According to this witness, at that time,
she told Appellant Laxmi Bai that she had not disclosed about her
visiting to Khongsara to her mother, but Appellant Laxmi Bai told
her that she had already told about this to her mother. According to
this witness, both of them went to Khongsara by a train. On the
way, inside the said train, Appellant Aabhas Kumar met them.
Appellant Laxmi Bai introduced him as her brother-in-law. All of
them went to Khongsara. There, Appellant Aabhas Kumar took
them to the house of his brother Sanju. This witness further
deposed that thereafter on the next day, on telling by the father of
Appellant Laxmi Bai, Appellant Laxmi Bai and this witness caught a
train for going to Bilaspur and in that train Appellant Aabhas Kumar
again met them. All of them stepped down at Belgehna Railway
Station. From there, they caught another train and went to Pendra.
From there, they went to Katni by another train and from there they
went to Delhi by another train. They halted at Delhi for 1 day and
thereafter from there they caught a train for Bilaspur. When the
train reached Jhansi, there co-accused Santosh came to them. All
of them went to the house of Santosh at Jhansi. All stayed at the
house of Santosh for about 3-4 days. This witness further deposed
that thereafter she was left at the house of Santosh and Santosh,
Laxmi Bai and Aabhas Kumar went out. Then mother of Santosh
told this witness that Laxmi Bai had sold her to Santosh and left her
there. She further deposed that later on Santosh returned.
Thereafter, Santosh took her to the house of Appellant Chandan
Singh (Advocate). Santosh made her sit on a scooter and thereafter
she was taken to a village. There, in an agricultural field, Santosh
committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. This witness further
deposed that thereafter Chandan Singh and Santosh took her to
the house of co-accused Shriram Singh on a scooter. There,
Chandan Singh sold her to Shriram Singh for a consideration of
Rs.15,000. This witness further deposed that thereafter Chandan
Singh again took her to somewhere on a scooter and there he told
her that she will now tell her name as Rani Patel and obtained her
signatures on an affidavit (Ex.P8). She further deposed that
thereafter Shriram Singh took her to his house and there he
committed sexual intercourse with her frequently for about 20-21
days. Thereafter, police came and recovered her from the
possession of Shriram Singh. In paragraph 28 of her cross-
examination, this witness admitted that at the time of talks going on
regarding her sale and marriage with Shriram Singh, Appellant
Aabhas Kumar was not present there. In paragraph 49 of her
cross-examination, this witness further deposed that Chandan
Singh and Santosh were the persons who took her to the house of
Shriram Singh and Chandan Singh had obtained her signatures on
the affidavit (Ex.P8) in the name of Rani Patel.
11. Yasmin Begum (PW2), mother of the victim, deposed that on
13.10.1999 at about 5:30 p.m., when she reached her house, she
found that the victim had not returned home. She came to know
that Appellant Laxmi Bai had taken the victim away. 1 month
thereafter, when she came to know that Appellant Laxmi Bai was at
Village Khongsara at the house of her father, she went to her.
Laxmi Bai told her that the victim had gone to Pendra along with
Appellant Aabhas Kumar. This witness further deposed that
thereafter when she visited Jhansi along with police officials, she
found the victim there working in an agricultural field.
12. Ku. Shanti (PW5) deposed that on the date of incident, Laxmi Bai
had come to her house and got 2 letters written by her, one in her
own name and another in the name of the victim and on being
asked she had told her that they were going somewhere. The
above statement of this witness is not rebutted during her cross-
examination.
13. Sanju Kumar Yadav (PW9), a resident of Khongsara deposed that
in the evening, Aabhas Kumar, Laxmi Bai and the victim came to
his house and stayed there in the night. At that time, on being
asked, Aabhas Kumar told that both the females were daughters of
his Bua. The above statement of this witness is not rebutted during
his cross-examination.
14. Anil (PW25) deposed that in the year 1999, he was working as a
Stamp Vendor. According to this witness, on 1.11.1999, Appellant
Chandan Singh had purchased a stamp (Ex.P8) from him. Notary
Amritlal (PW24) also deposed that Appellant Chandan Singh had
submitted an affidavit (Ex.P8) before him which was written by
Appellant Chandan Singh and Chandan Singh had also identified
the person who had taken oath as Rani Patel and he had also
signed as identifier of Rani Patel. The above statements of these 2
witnesses are not rebutted during their cross-examination in any
manner.
15. On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that at
the time of alleged incident, the victim (PW10) was aged about 14-
15 years. From her statement, it is also established that initially
Appellant Laxmi Bai allured her and took her to Village Khongsara.
It is also established that on the way, in the train, Appellant Aabhas
Kumar also met them and accompanied them. Further, all of the 3
persons, i.e., Laxmi Bai, Aabhas Kumar and the victim went and
visited various above-named places. The statement of the victim is
duly corroborated by her mother Yasmin Begum (PW2). From the
statement of Yasmin Begum (PW2), it is also established that
initially Appellant Laxmi Bai had taken the victim away and had also
left a letter and after 1 month when Yasmin Begum (PW2) met with
Laxmi Bai at Village Khongsara then she told this witness that the
victim was taken away by Appellant Aabhas Kumar. From the
unrebutted statement of Ku. Shanti (PW5), it is also established
that when Laxmi Bai had taken the victim away, at that time, Laxmi
Bai had got 2 letters written by this witness (Ku. Shanti). Out of the
said 2 letters, 1 was in the name of Laxmi Bai herself and the other
letter was in the name of victim. From the statement of Sanju
Kumar Yadav (PW9), it is also established that Laxmi Bai, Aabhas
Kumar and the victim had come to his house at Village Khongsara
and stayed there in the night. Though on some point, the victim
developed her statement and there are some contradictions and
omissions in her statement, only on the basis of that, her whole
statement cannot be discarded. Looking to the above evidence
available on record, it is well established that at the time of incident,
the victim was below 16 years of age and knowing this fact, both
Laxmi Bai and Aabhas Kumar had taken the victim away along with
them by alluring her beyond her legal guardianship. From the
statement of the victim, it is also established that both Laxmi Bai
and Aabhas Kumar had taken the victim to the house of Santosh.
There, the victim was exploited and raped by Santosh. As stated
by the victim, first Appellant Laxmi Bai sold her to co-accused
Santosh. The above statement of the victim is not duly rebutted
during her cross-examination. The victim has already admitted that
at the time of her selling, Appellant Aabhas Kumar was not present
there. According to the statement of the victim, at 2 nd stage, she
was sold to co-accused Shriram Singh by Appellant Chandan Singh
for a consideration of Rs.15,000. This statement of the victim is
also not duly rebutted. From the statements of Stamp Vendor Anil
(PW25) and Notary Amritlal (PW24), it is also established that the
stamp on which affidavit (Ex.P8) was written and executed was
purchased by Appellant Chandan Singh and Appellant Chandan
Singh is the person who wrote the said affidavit (Ex.P8) in his
handwriting and Appellant Chandan Singh himself is the person
who identified the victim in the said affidavit as Rani Patel.
Appellant Chandan Singh was not previously acquainted with the
victim, but, even thereafter he identified the victim as Rani Patel,
i.e., a Hindu girl, who, in fact, was a Muslim girl and that too
identified her as a major girl.
16. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the
Trial Court has rightly convicted Appellant Laxmi Bai for the
offences under Sections 363, 366, 366A and 372 of the Indian
Penal Code. Therefore, her conviction under Sections 363, 366,
366A and 372 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed.
17. The Trial Court has also rightly convicted Appellant Aabhas Kumar
for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 366A of the Indian
Penal Code. Therefore, his conviction under Sections 363, 366
and 366A of the Indian Penal Code is also affirmed. As observed
above, at the time of selling of the victim to co-accused Santosh
and thereafter to co-accused Shriram Singh, Appellant Aabhas
Kumar was not present there. There is also no evidence available
on record that Appellant Aabhas Kumar received any part of the
sale consideration. Therefore, his conviction under Section 372 of
the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable and is thus set aside.
18. With regard to Appellant Chandan Singh, there is sufficient
evidence available on record to show that Appellant Chandan
Singh was the person who sold the victim to co-accused Shriram
Singh for the consideration of Rs.15,000. It is also well established
that Appellant Chandan Singh prepared the false affidavit (Ex.P8)
of the victim in the name of Rani Patel. Therefore, the Trial Court
has rightly convicted Appellant Chandan Singh for the offences
under Sections 372, 193(2) and 199 of the Indian Penal Code. His
conviction under Sections 372, 193(2) and 199 of the Indian Penal
Code is also affirmed. With regard to other offences of Appellant
Chandan Singh under Sections 363, 366 and 366A of the Indian
Penal Code, from the statement of the victim (PW10) and the other
evidence available on record, it is established that initially the victim
was taken away from her legal guardianship by Appellant Laxmi Bai
and thereafter both Appellants Laxmi Bai and Aabhas Kumar had
taken the victim away along with them and they went and visited
various above-named places. There is no evidence available on
record to show that at the time of abduction or kidnapping of the
victim, Appellant Chandan Singh was present there and made any
participation in this regard. Therefore, his conviction under
Sections 363, 366 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code is not
sustainable and is thus set aside.
19. As regards sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case that the incident was of the year 1999, i.e., 23 years old,
the Appellants are facing the lis for the last 23 years, Appellant
Laxmi Bai has already undergone jail sentence for about 1 year in
this case, Appellant Aabhas Kumar has already undergone for
about 1 year and 9 months and Appellant Chandan Singh has
already undergone for about 2½ months, I am of the view that
interest of justice would be served if they are sentenced for the
period already undergone by them for their above-stated affirmed
convictions. Ordered accordingly.
20. So far as fine sentences are concerned, since the Appellants have
been sentenced for the period already undergone by them, it would
be in the interest of justice that their fine sentences are enhanced.
The fine sentences of Appellant Laxmi Bai for her offences under
Sections 363, 366, 366A and 372 of the Indian Penal Code are
enhanced from Rs.1,000 each to Rs.10,000 each, i.e., total
Rs.40,000 and in default of payment thereof, she shall be liable to
undergo simple imprisonment for 6-6 months for each of the
offences.
21. With regard to Appellant Aabhas Kumar, his fine is also enhanced
from Rs.1,000 each to Rs.10,000 each, i.e., total Rs.30,000 for his
offences under Sections 363, 366 and 366A of the Indian Penal
Code and in default of payment thereof, he shall be liable to
undergo simple imprisonment for 6-6 months for each of the
offences.
22. With Regard to Appellant Chandan Singh, looking to the fact that
he is an Advocate, i.e., a law knowing person, despite that he
committed this type of crime, it is directed that he shall pay fine of
Rs.20,000, Rs.20,000 and Rs.20,000, i.e., total Rs.60,000 in place
of Rs.1,000, Rs.500 and Rs.500 for the respective offences under
Sections 372, 193(2) and 199 of the Indian Penal Code and in
default of payment thereof he shall be liable to undergo simple
imprisonment for 6-6 months for each of the offences.
23. It is further directed that the fine amounts imposed as above today
shall be deposited by the Appellants within a period of two months
from today. If any amount has already been deposited towards fine
by any of the Appellants, the same shall be adjusted in the amounts
of fine imposed today.
24. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part to the extent
shown above.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
JUDGE
Gopal
