1 - Vinod Uraon Aged S/ o Sohor Uraon, aged about 30 years, occupation v. 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, through P. S. Lakhanpur, District Surguja
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 683 of 2004 1 - Vinod Uraon Aged S/ o Sohor Uraon, aged about 30 years, occupation- Agriculture R/o Village Bhakurma, P. S. Lakhanpur, District Surguja (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, through P. S. Lakhanpur, District Surguja (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate Ms. M. Asha, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 06/02/2025 1. This is an appeal preferred by the accused/appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment impugned dated 04.08.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur District Surguja in Sessions Trial No. 179/2004 acquitting him of the charge under Section 506-B IPC, but holding him guilty under Sections 450 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code and imposing the sentence of 7 and 3 years RI with fine of Rs.500/-, plus default stipulations. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the victim (PW-1) is aged about 2 40 years. On 27.01.2004 she slept in her house situated at village Bhakurma Police Station Lakhanpur, Surguja. Her children and husband had gone out, in the night the accused came to her house at about 12’o clock and after pushing the door of the house held her and asked her to remove her clothes or else to face dire consequences. Due to which she got scared, thereafter the accused/appellant committed sexual intercourse with her twice against her will and then ran away. On the next day, the incident was narrated by her to the villagers witnesses Sagar, Dhansai, Noharsai. On 06.02.2004 when her husband came back from work, the incident was also narrated to him. A Panchayat was convened in the village, in the Panchayat the accused started quarrel with the prosecutrix and her husband and committed Marpit. On which on instruction of the Panchayat, a report of the incident was lodged in Police Station Lakhanpur on 17.02.2004 vide Ex. P-1. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and report Ex. P-4 was received. Two slides were prepared, her clothes underpants were seized and after due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambikapur who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Court. After due investigation, the learned trial Court framed the charges as stated above. The accused/appellant however, denied the charge framed against him and claimed for trial. 3. So as to establish its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded where he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned learned Court below has held the accused/appellant guilty and imposed the sentence as described above which is challenge before this Court by the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the prosecution is doubtful. The alleged incident is said to have committed on 27.01.2004 and the report was 3 lodged on 17.02.2004. The statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is not out sterling quality to sustain the conviction. The medical report of the prosecutrix also does not support the case as she was found to be habitual to sexual intercourse. He submits that the statement of her husband namely Devsai (PW-2) clearly demonstrate that it could be a case of consent and if an amount of Rs.1000/- was paid by the appellant to them, no report would have been lodged by them. Even the prosecutrix could not see the accused/ appellant but she could identify him only on the basis of voice. The prosecutrix is a mature lady of 40 years at the time of incident whereas the appellant was aged about 30 years. Even there is no satisfactory explanation given for lodging the FIR with huge delay of almost 20 days. In these circumstances, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted from all the charges. 6. Per contra, State counsel supported the judgment impugned and submits that the prosecutrix has categorically deposed against the appellant and the conviction can sustain on solitary statement of prosecutrix, the learned trial Court on meticulous examination of the evidence brought it gave a categorical finding of conviction against the appellant and the meritorious finding recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be disturbed and the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In the description of the incident given by the prosecutrix she has stated that she was subjected to sexual intercourse once and half an hour thereafter he again committed the same act and then ran away. She has stated that she told the story to the villagers Dhansai, Noharsai and Sagar. However, Nohar Sai (PW-5) states that he was informed about the incident by the husband of the prosecutrix. Though one witness Sagar (PW-6) has stated that he was informed about the incident by the prosecutrix and a Panchayat meeting was also convened where accused was also present but he has denied the offence alleged against him. In the evidence of prosecutrix she has stated that when she asked the name of the person who came inside the house, he had gagged her mouth. She has further stated that as her husband was not there in the 4 village, and when he came back after 15 days, the report was lodged. She has stated that had the matter been settled in the Panchayat the report would not have been lodged. From the statement of this witness it appears that though she speaks about the happening of the intercourse twice with her but her statement clearly indicates that by for about more than half an hour, the person remained in her house and it does not appear as to whether any alarm was raised by her and she called for any help. 9. The husband of the prosecutrix (PW-2) stated that when the incident was informed to him by his wife, a Panchayat was convened. He further stated that the appellant stated in Panchayat that he has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix and her husband. He further stated that it is on his persuasion the report was lodged otherwise in this type of cases compromise takes place just for Rs.1000/- for which they agreed but as the appellant was not ready for that and indulged in assault, they lodged the report. He further deposed that after Panchayat they waited for 8-10 days and if the appellant would have made the payment, they would have not lodged the report. Dr. Roshlin R. Ekka (PW-8) medically examined the prosecutrix and did not find any external or internal injury to her. The prosecutrix was said to be habitual to sexual intercourse and no definite opinion with regard to recent intercourse could be given. 10. On analysis of the evidence it appears that the incident had occurred in the night when the husband and children of the prosecutrix were not there. It is a case of the prosecution that the appellant entered the house of prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse twice. From the overall conduct of the prosecutrix it does not appear that at the time of incident she raised any hue and cry to attract the attention of the people from neighbourhood. From the evidence of the prosecutrix itself it is clear that her husband came 15 days after the incident but even then she waited for 8-10 more days to lodge the report and the husband of the victim has stated that usually the matter is settled in Panchayat in such cases and if the accused/ appellant had agreed to make a payment of Rs.1000/-, the criminal proceedings might not have been initiated at the instance of the victim. One more thing which this Court feels difficult to digest as to 5 what prevented the prosecutrix from attracting the attention of the outsider by making hue and cry the moment appellant had entered her house and played with her chastity. Even assuming that her husband was not at home but in such cases the prosecutrix was not expected to keep silence for such a considerable longer period. Even otherwise there are several contradictions and omissions not only in the evidence of the prosecutrix but in the evidence of the other witnesses including her husband. The prosecutrix herself has stated different things at different places which renders her testimony unbelievable and creates a dent in the case of prosecution. Even the medical evidence does not opine any external or internal injury on the person of the prosecutrix to show any mark of resistance made by her at the time of incident. True the conviction can be based in such cases merely on the testimony of the prosecutrix but for doing that such evidence must be of sterling quality and the same inspires confidence and is of unimpeachable quality without any blemish. These parameters are quite absent in this case. The incident had taken place on 27.01.2004 and the report was lodged on 17.02.2004 i .e. after a delay of about 20 days. The reason assigned by the prosecution is that as the husband of the prosecutrix was not available and he had returned from outside on 06.02.2004, the report could not be lodged in promptitude. The reason so assigned does not seem to be convincing because even if the husband was not available, by taking the help of neighbours or the people of vicinity or the people in whom she reposed faith she might have gone to the Police Station and lodged the report. The statement of the prosecutrix in this respect further gets falsified by the testimony of her husband who has stated that had the matter been settled after payment of Rs.1000/- from the side of accused/ appellant, the lodgment of report could not have been resorted to. 11. Thus this Court has no hesitation to say that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the same has to go to the accused/ appellant. So also the Court below has also committed an error in not analyzing the evidence brought before it in its proper perspective. This being the scenario, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal. 6 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, judgment impugned is set aside and the accused/appellant is acquitted of charge leveled against him. His bail bond will remain in force for six months in view of section 481 of BNSS Act. 13. Record with copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial court. PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.02.10 17:26:12 +0530 Parul Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE