1 - Sumer Khadiya S/o Dukhuram Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Amora, Police v. 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Tumgaon
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:10404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1456 of 2021 1 - Sumer Khadiya S/o Dukhuram Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Amora, Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Puneet Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Judgment on Board 03/03/2025 This appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 22/10/2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahasamund (CG) in Sessions Trial No.21/2021 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner - Conviction Sentence Under Section 376(2)(n) of R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.5000/- in I.P.C default of payment of fine further R.I. for 06 months 2 2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant on multiple occasions. A report to that effect was lodged by her father (PW3) on 05/01/2021 at Police Chowki–Sirpur, Police Station–Tumgaon that for the last one month, he and his wife had gone to Uttar Pradesh for earning livelihood. His father, two small sons and two daughters were residing in the house. The prosecutrix is a patient of Epilepsy for about 15 years. Last week, as his father died, he came back to his home at village– Keshaldih, then his wife informed that on 22/12/2020, the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant and again on 23/12/2020, she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant. On the basis of such report, FIR (Ex.P/7) was lodged. 3. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined. Her slides, pubic hair, underwear were seized. Appellant was arrested. He was also medically examined. Spot map was prepared by the police and patwari. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund, CG. The same was committed to the Sessions Court, Mahasamund who made over the case to the trial Court. 4. The appellant was charged for an offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above which led to filing of this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is perverse and contrary to the evidence and is bad in law. He 3 submits that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution with regard to forceful sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He further submits that the statement of the prosecutrix (PW1) is full of material contradictions and omissions which does not inspire confidence. He submits that the incident is said to have been committed on 22/12/2020 and 23/12/2020 and the report was lodged on 05/01/2021 with a considerable period of delay. Therefore, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. Thereafter, he submits that from the statement of the prosecutrix, it is apparent that she did not resist during sexual intercourse neither she immediately informed the same to her grand father. Therefore, she can be said to be a consenting party being major and more than 20 years of age. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of all the charges. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the above submission and submits that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based upon proper appreciation of evidence. The prosecutrix has categorically deposed against the appellant. The medical report also supports the case of the prosecution and it is established on record that the prosecutrix is a patient of Epilepsy and only weighs 28 kgs. She submits that the explanation of delayed FIR has been considered by the learned trial Court as the grand father of the prosecutrix had died and thereafter, report was lodged. The prosecutrix had informed about the incident to her sister (PW4) and her statement also corroborates with the statement of the prosecutrix. Therefore, she submits that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court requires no interference and this appeal may be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4 8. The law with regard to sustain conviction under Section 376 of IPC is no longer res integra. If the prosecutrix is termed to be a sterling witness and her statement inspires confidence, conviction can be sustained on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix. Please see-State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary and ors, (2019) 11 SCC 575 and Phool Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 2 SCC 74. 9. In the light of above judicial pronouncements, the facts of this case has to be dealt with. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW1 and she has categorically stated in her statement that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant firstly on 22/12/2020 in the jungle when she was being taken for treatment on motor cycle with her grandfather and her grandfather was asked to get down from the motor cycle and the appellant took the prosecutrix inside the jungle and committed sexual intercourse and on the next day i.e. on 23/12/2020, when she was all alone in the house, she was again subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant. A suggestion was given by the appellant that she did not raise any alarm and did not resist, however, an explanation has been offered that she was frightened. From the statement of Dr. Shakuntala Bariha (PW2), it appears that the prosecutrix had signs of sexual intercourse and she also appears to be a patient of Epilepsy and her weight was only 28 kgs. The statement of the prosecutrix was also corroborated by the statement of her sister (PW4) who is said to have been informed by the prosecutrix regarding forcible sexual intercourse committed on her by the appellant. Though there is delay in lodging of FIR but the delay has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix in the FIR itself. Learned trial Court on meticulous examination of the evidence of the prosecutrix and the other witnesses 5 came to a conclusion that the statement of the prosecutrix can be relied upon. Learned trial Court also considered her medical report and her ailment. The finding so recorded cannot be said to be perverse, therefore, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.03.10 11:08:07 +0530