Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh v. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate Janjgir-Champa
Case Details
2025:CGHC:2278 Reserved on : 13/02/2025 Delivered on : 07/05/2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.A. No. 815 of 2003 Diwaker Ram Bareth, S/o Garib Ram, aged 29 Years, R/o Paladi Kala, Police Station – Baradwar, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ------ Appellant Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State : : Shri Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Shri Ankur Kashyap, Dy.G.A.. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC), being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03/07/2003 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Shakti, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 05/2003 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 376(1) of I.P.C R.I. for 08 years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine additional R.I. -2- of 02 months Under Section 323 of I.P.C R.I. for 04 months and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine additional R.I. of 01 month. Both the sentence to run concurrently 3. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on the date of incident i.e. 25/10/2002 at about 02:00PM, the prosecutrix had gone to her field situated at Village – Budhikhaar Palaadikala, Police Station – Baradwaar. At that time one person met the prosecutrix and engaged in conversation. When the prosecutrix started cutting the paddy crop at that time the appellant who was identified by the prosecutrix in the identification parade caught her from behind, upon which prosecutrix tried to free herself upon which she was plunged on the floor when she made alarm, the appellant pressed her neck and assaulted her with hands and fists as a result of which the prosecutrix got fainted on the spot and after sometime, she regained her consciousness and informed the incident to her sister-in-law at home. Report was lodged on 25/10/2002 to the Police Station – Baradwaar upon which crime No.195/2002 was registered vide Ex.P/1 and after lodging the report went to her house. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/4. During answering the natural’s call she found that she was subjected to intercourse and some stickiness was felt in her private parts. This was intimated to her husband and on the next day, the incident was reported to police station. As the factum of sexual intercourse was came into light, the prosecutrix was medically examined and appellant was identified by her in the identification parade vide Ex.P/5. Broken bangles, chain, under garments of the prosecutrix were seized vide Ex.P/15. The slide prepared from the private part of the prosecutrix and the clothes were medically examined from State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P/1 and as per their report vide Ex.P/29 semen spots and spermatozoa were found on the clothes, under garments and petty coat. -3- 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed section 376, 323 and 506-II of the I.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti. Criminal case No.5296/2002 was registered by the ACJM and vide its order dated 04/01/2003 committed the case to the Sessions Court, Bilaspur who
Legal Reasoning
made over the case to the learned trial court for trial. 5. The appellant was charged for an offense punishable under section 376, 322, 323 and 506 Part – II of the I.P.C. who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited as many as 30 documents. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he claimed his innocence and pleaded false implication. One defense witness DW/1 – Lalooram Sahu was examined. 7. The learned trial Court on assessment of the material placed on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in the first paragraph of the judgment.
Legal Reasoning
8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution was unable to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the story put forth by the prosecution is unrealistic and cannot be relied upon to sustained conviction. He submits that the incident is said to have occurred at 02:00 PM in the open field, therefore it cannot be believed that no one has seen the incident. He submits that initially the prosecutrix lodged FIR regarding outraging her modesty and subsequently on the next day, she has stated that she was subjected to sexual intercourse which creates doubt in the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. He further submits that presence of semen on the clothes would ipso facto not lead to a conclusion that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant as she was a -4- married lady and residing with her husband on the date of incident. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not conducted any DNA test to ascertain as to whether the spermatozoa found on the articles seized is of the present applicant. The factum of sexual intercourse could not be proved by way of medical evidence as the doctor has not given any positive opinion with regard to recent sexual intercourse. He further submits that the statement of the prosecutrix is not impeccable treating her to be sterling witness. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130, Jalal v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Lahore 193 (1), Indar Singh and anr. v. Emperor, AIR 1927 Lahore 867, Hem Raj v. State of