INJAIL v. Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, coun

Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, coun Mr. Neeraj Mehta, PL for >el for the appellant. he State/respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT aber2007) (6th Septer Dhirendra Mishra, J The appellant has prefej 374(2) of the Code of Criminal of conviction and order of sentt S.T.No. 362/99 whereby leariji Durg has convicted the appell) IPC and sentenced him to und^i red this appeal under Section 'rocedure against the judgment ;nce dated 14.3.2000 passed in :d Additional Sessions Judge, int under Section 376(1) of the "go R.I. for ten years, pay a fine payment of fine to undergo of Rs.500/- and in default (|i additional R.I. for six months. G RPRJ—FS/246—2/2007—50.UUO. \ \... .E'SSi'igESaiSi!-, 3rcT -^ww-if, •a-^w\6, Rldiy^ V^W *t(|cK'"-""----------------^ 200 SIT^T •(igq; (Tpfgq^T) SII^I.^T Vw* wirsiRwamw Wiiw^fersii^r •riili'i'fli ilwif if feis> TfSj^R ^aifiman^r

2. Case of the prosecution father of the prosecutrix, aged a together along with Muritbai, s The prosecutruc lodged a report allegations against the accused atabout 11.00 p.m. on 31.8.19< step niother Muritbai. It has that since two months before i|n brief is that the accused is (>out 18 years, and they resided tep mother of the prosecutrbc. t>n 2nd September 1999 making that he committed rape on her f9, which was witnessed by her Iso been mentioned in the FIR •1.8.1999 the accused forcibly rapped her and threatened her one and thereafter, he repeatec [not to disclose this fact to any this act every night. On the basis of above report offencf was registered against accused/appellant. The pros I< examination and lady Dr. N. and gave her report of Ex.P/5. charge sheet was filed againsl ;cutrix was sent for medical ]aan examined the prosecutrbc After completing investigation the accused/appellant in the U(»y»i ;::t-^FSl-S%J ;!?-•! Court of Judicial Magistrate Fir^ .t Class, Durg.

3. During trial the prosecu| ion examined eight witnesses. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.CI circ-umstances appearing again) and pleaded innocence and fals( in which he denied the >t him in the prosecution case implication in the crime. GRPRJ —FS/246—2/2007—50.UOO. 3^ET -^WW^, '3fS\WI'c, Rlrilti^ 'mwir *NI<*> -•--•••••—-•-•••••••---••,... ^ 200 sri^r ira^ ('ipf^^i) sii^i.^rl^iig? WITSIICT 'gniw ww^fte aii^i i>i<<t<i«i1-iw^i ^f tezt ^fe^ii ^; STfilH 31I^r

4. Learned Additional Ses; the respective parties, 'f.ons Judge after hearing counsel convicted and sentenced the aceused/appellant as inendon| :d above. fSKS!'if" appellant has been roped ii a false case by his own wife

5. Learned counsel he appellant submits that Muritbai with whora he does report has been lodged by He further subjnits Muritbai. examined by Dr. N. Khan (1 injuries over the person of th^ prosecutrK is habitual of se( opinion regarding recent inter| lot have cordial relations and the he prosecutrix as per advice of the prosecutrus was W-4) and she did not find any prosecutrix and opined that the sual intercourse and no definite :ourse can be given.

6. On the other hand, learbed counsel for the State submits that conviction of the appelli the prosecutrfac who is none offence was wifaiessed by hi|s nt is based on the statement of 'ther than his own daughter, the wife Muritbai and there is no reason for the prosecutrb; and Muritbai to implicate the appellant in a false case anc|l that too, for an offence of rape against his own daughter.

7. I have heard learned cc) the material available on unsel for fhe parties and perused -ecord including the impugned judgment. GRPRJ—FS/246—2/2007—50.UUO. d-CT^ "q|A||<rt.l|, ®Tf1+f'16,Is|<''l|'y^< ^Wv{[ **114» V^ 200 sn^r •q'ra; (4<<Fl»<<«i) SII^I.qiT Ri-li* WIT31R?r:*41«b 'Rarar ^ito SD^I CM^I^I^II l^R^ff "^f 1^i^ ^^K ^3iRFT3Ilt?t

8. The prosecutrK in her accused is her father and PW All of them had gone to earn th| and resided together in the Two-three months before th( rapped her and threatened hej anyone and thereafter, he rep( the cross-examination she hai lodged the report at the instarj though she has admitted thatl occasionally quarreled with ea|i examination she has stuck to chief. The defence has not bt makes her evidence untrui statement is corroborated by wife of the appellant and step) has stated that they resided ii|> Navatariya where they had gor|( three used to sleep on the floo^ the night she woke up due husband committing rape wit^i Istatement has stated that the |2 Muritbai is her step ruother. ;ir livelihood to village Navataria jame hutment of one Ansuiya. the accused forcibly incident {• not to disclose the incident to ^ated the offence every night. denied the suggestion that she In :e of her step mother Muritbai, |her step mother and her father In the lengthy cross- :h other. lier statement of examination-in- ;n able to elicit anything which Her ^tworthy or unreliable. |the statement Muritbai (PW-2), mother of the prosecutrix, who the house of Ansuiya at village to earn their livelihood. All the together. A day before Rakhi in to stomach ache and saw her the prosecutrb; and thereafter, id explained the reason for delay the report was lodged. She h< in lodging the report. GR.PRJ—FS/246—2/2007—50,UUO. ssr-' "y. •.»:.1.RiS..:; ^,^ ^I.IRILillWI. , 11111) 3^? -^l'Mlrt'il, ®Tn<1'l<S,KliTll^y *«1CTI sb*<|cb ••••-----•--•--•••••---•••••-•• ^ 200 an^?r tigg; (ijcif-iBi<i!») •a^i?>i ft-fi^i WIT 3]R^l gmiq? 'S^IIW^l 311^1 ^t<4d<^*T *ffR<fl|tf feyll l^!^1' i;3ifOT aii^i Thus, from the statement 9. i.e. PW-1 Ku. Chhoti, the prosc Dr. N. Khan, which is als' involvement of the accusedi established and the Court beli conclusion that the appellant daughter. of the above three witnesses sutrfae, PW-2 Muritbai 8s PW-4 )) corroborated by the FIR, ^.ppellant ^w has rightly reached to the :ommitted rape with his own in the offence

10. Leamed counsel th( appellant submits that appellg.nt is injail since 4.9.19' completed 8 years jail sentence, iraposed on him may be R.I. f9 and as such, he has already therefore, sentence of 10 years "educed to the period already undergone by him.

11. Looking to the gravity of| committed rape with his owij counsel for the appellant cannoj the offence that the appellant daughter, prayer of leamed be accepted. ^tf:-^te.,=.A.-^.:^ .<;?-> S'??fr-^% 3:?i^SS5i^^' liable to be dismissed and is acd ordingly, dismissed

12. In the result, the appea) being devoid of substance is f( GRPRJ—FS/246—2/2007—50.UUO.