Chattisgarh High Court
Kuber Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 January, 2023
Cr.A.No.228/2014
Page 1 of 7
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.228 of 2014
{Arising out of judgment dated 8-1-2014 in Sessions Trial No.148/2012
of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj}
Kuber Ram, S/o Suresh Ram Kanwar, Aged about 30 years, R/o
Village Dohna, P.S. Shankargarh, present address Kodwathala, P.S.
Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)
(In Custody)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)
---- Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant: Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede and Mr. Sahil Singh,
Advocates.
For State / Respondent: -
Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Deputy Government Advocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ.
Judgment On Board
(23-1-2023)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under
Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8-1-2014
passed in Sessions Trial No.148/2012 by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, by which
the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376 & 506 Part-
II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life &
Cr.A.No.228/2014
pay a fine of ₹ 500/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment
for six months and rigorous imprisonment for three years & fine
of ₹ 500/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for six
months, respectively.
2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 13-3-2012 at 07.00
p.m., at Village Kodwa, Police Station Kusmi, the appellant has
threatened the major victim and committed sexual intercourse
with her and thereby committed the offence. It is the further case
of the prosecution that the victim's husband has deserted her,
therefore, she was living separately along with her parents in
Village Kodwa and on the fateful day, she has gone for work as
daily wager along with Bholaram (PW-2) and his wife Sakun Devi
(PW-4), then the appellant under the influence of liquor, caught
hold of the victim and taken her near Brick factory of Pankeshwar
and committed sexual intercourse with her. Immediately, the
matter was informed to the police pursuant to which FIR was
registered and the victim was medically examined vide Ex.P-10
by the Community Health Centre, Shankar Garh, District Surguja.
3. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the
appellant for offence under Sections 376 & 506 Part-II of the IPC
before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanujganj and
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Balrampur-
Ramanujganj from where the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ramanujganj received the case on transfer for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as
Cr.A.No.228/2014
many as 13 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 14
documents Exs.P-1 to P-14. Defence has not examined any
witness in its support, however, exhibited one document Ex.D-1.
Statement of the accused / appellant was recorded under Section
313 of the CrPC in which he abjured the guilt and pleaded
innocence and false implication and claimed to be tried.
5. The trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment,
convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the
opening paragraph of this judgment against which he has
preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC.
6. Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, would submit that the victim is major and consenting
party and as such, offence under Section 376 of the IPC has not
been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even if conviction is
upheld, the appellant is already in jail for more than ten years and
the minimum sentence as stood on the date of offence is seven
years, whereas he had already suffered ten years of
imprisonment in jail, therefore, the period already undergone by
the appellant would be just and sufficient sentence for the
appellant.
7. Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned Deputy Government Advocate
appearing for the State/respondent, would support the impugned
judgment and submit that the prosecution has brought home the
offences against the appellant and has proved the case beyond
Cr.A.No.228/2014
reasonable doubt and thus, the appellant has rightly been convicted
under Sections 376 & 506 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the
record with utmost circumspection.
9. It is admitted position on record that the victim on the date of
offence was major and a deserted woman living and staying with
her parents and the appellant was seen by Sakun Devi (PW-4)
while dragging the victim and thereafter, the appellant is said to
have committed sexual intercourse with the victim (PW-1). In the
statement before the court, the victim has supported the case of
the prosecution that the appellant has committed sexual
intercourse with her after dragging her, under the influence of
liquor which is supported by Bholaram (PW-2) & Sakun Devi
(PW-4). Dr. Smt. Jagrani Kujur (PW-9) has examined the victim
medically after the report and has noticed number of injuries all
over the body viz., one contusion and three scratches which are
signs of struggle on the part of the victim. Though no chemical
analysis report is available on record, but taking into
consideration the statement of the victim supported by Dr. Smt.
Jagrani Kujur (PW-9) and further taking into consideration the
statements of Bholaram (PW-2) & Sakun Devi (PW-4), it is held
that the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant has
committed sexual intercourse with the victim and thereby
Cr.A.No.228/2014
committed the offence, and we hereby affirm the conviction as
recorded by the trial Court.
10. Now, the next question is, whether the trial Court is justified in
sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life under
Section 376 of the IPC?
11. Section 376 of the IPC suffered amendment with effect from 3-2-
2013. Prior to amendment, Section 376 states as under: -
"376. Punishment for rape.--(1) Whoever, except in
the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits
rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than
seven years but which may be for life or for a term
which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable
to fine unless the women raped is his own wife and is
not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years or with fine or
with both:
Provided that the court may, for adequate and
special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment,
impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less
than seven years.
(2) Whoever,--
(a) being a police officer commits rape-
(i) within the limits of the police station to which
he is appointed; or
(ii) in the premises of any station house
whether or not situated in the police station to
which he is appointed, or
(iii) on a woman in his custody or in the custody
of a police officer subordinate to him; or
(b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his
official position and commits rape on a woman in his
Cr.A.No.228/2014
custody as such public servant or in the custody of a
public servant subordinate to him; or
(c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail,
remand home or other place of custody established by
or under any law for the time being in force or of a
woman's or children's institution takes advantage of his
official position and commits rape on any inmate of
such jail, remand home, place or institution; or
(d) being on the management or on the staff of a
hospital, takes advantage of his official position and
commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
(e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be
pregnant; or
(f) commits rape on a woman when she is under
twelve years of age; or
(g) commits gang rape,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than ten years but which may be
for life and shall also be liable to fine:"
12. A careful perusal of Section 376 of the IPC (prior to amendment),
would reveal that 7 years minimum sentence has been
prescribed which may extend to ten years. The Supreme Court
in the matter of Vipul Rasikbhai Koli Jankher v. State of Gujarat 1
considering the decisions in the matters of Dharambir v. State of
Uttar Pradesh2 and Maru Ram v. Union of India3 has held that in
determining the quantum of sentence, the Court must bear in
mind the circumstances pertaining to the offence and all other
relevant circumstances including the age of the offender, and in
that case sentenced the appellant therein for a term of 15 years'
imprisonment.
2 (1979) 3 SCC 645
3 (1981) 1 SCC 107
Cr.A.No.228/2014
13. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Vipul Rasikbhai
Koli Jankher (supra), ends of justice would be served if the
appellant is sentenced for a period of 11 years' imprisonment, as
he is in jail from 23-3-2012, in place of the sentence of life
imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court.
14. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Affirming the
conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 & 506 Part-II of
the IPC, we hereby sentence him to 11 years' imprisonment i.e.
the period already undergone by him. The appellant is in jail. He
be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Soma
