Bemetara, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Stati
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:9661 NAFR AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1682 of 2022 Munna Baghel S/o Gopal Baghel Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Sambalpur Police Station Nandghat, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Nandghat, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/02/2025 1. Though, today the present appeal has been listed for hearing on I.A. No.2 of 2022, which is application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and considering the period of detention of the appellant, the appeal is heard finally. 2.
Decision
Accordingly, I.A. No.02 of 2022 stands disposed of. 2 3. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), District Bemetara (C.G.) in CIS No. Sessions Case No.49/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in following manner :- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 450 of the RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/-, Indian Penal Code in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 15 days. Under Section 376(2)(n) of RI for 10 years and fine of the Indian Penal Code Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 month. Under Section 377 of the RI for 10 years and fine of Indian Penal Code Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 month. Under Section 506 Part-II of RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-, the Indian Penal Code in default of payment of fine to (All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently) further undergo RI for 15 days. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 03.06.2021, the victim submitted a written complaint at Nandghat Police Station, alleging therein that her husband had passed away, and she lived alone with her married daughter. On the night of 01.06.2021, after dinner, she locked her bedroom door from inside and went to sleep with the lights on. Around 11-12 P.M., accused Munna Satnami, from her village, entered her room by removing the iron 3 rod from the door. The victim recognized him due to the lighting. The appellant then lay down on the bed with the victim and committed rape. Despite the victim's resistance and pleas, the appellant threatened to kill her, covered her mouth and neck, and turned off the lights. He stayed for about an hour and then committed rape again on the floor. The appellant warned the victim not to reveal the incident to anyone, threatening to kill her if she did. The victim, fearing for her life, did not report the incident to anyone. 5. On 02.06.2021, around 8:00 P.M., the victim had dinner, locked her door from the inside, and went to sleep with a lit lantern in her home. She was in a deep sleep when the accused returned around midnight, removed the door's iron rod, and approached her bed. He covered her mouth, and when she tried to scream, he threatened to kill her and choked her. The appellant then removed the victim's clothes, including her saree, blouse, and lehenga, when the victim began crying, the appellant covered her mouth. He then raped her on the bed and extinguished the lantern. The appellant stayed at the victim's house for about an hour, threatening and intimidating her. After an hour, he forced his genitals into the victim's mouth, despite her resistance. He then tore open a packet of oil and inserted it into the victim's genitals, causing her immense pain. The appellant applied the same oil to his genitals and raped the victim again on the floor. This caused injuries and scratches on the victim's back. When she screamed, 4 the appellant slapped her on the left cheek and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident. He then fled from the spot. The victim remained in a state of shock throughout the night, unable to sleep. The next morning, she put on her clothes and found her door's iron rod removed, an empty oil packet, and a cigarette butt on the floor. 6. The victim, distressed by the two-day ordeal, gathered courage and called her daughter, Mamta, who lives in Pathargarhi village, to come to her home on 03.06.2021. She shared the incidents with Mamta, who then accompanied her to Nandghat Police Station, along with her son-in-law, Ramesh, and sister-in-law, Punni Bai. They filed a report, and the police registered Crime No. 185/2021 against the accused. After a thorough investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the jurisdictional criminal Court, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bemetara, from where the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bemetara received the case on transfer for trial. 7. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited the documents (Exs.P-1 to P-39). The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has 5 convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was a 63-year-old lady. The appellant categorically denies entering her house or committing rape. In fact, it is implausible that such an offence could occur through a closed door at 11-12 P.M. Furthermore, the FIR was registered after two days of the alleged incident and no explanation was offered for delay in lodging the FIR. This clearly indicates that the appellant has been falsely implicated in crime in question. She further submits that learned trial Court erroneously relied on the testimony of Rakesh Narware (PW-7), whose credibility is questionable and whose statements are unreliable, unsupported, and contradictory to the case. She also submits that as the police investigation failed to yield any corroborative evidence, and considering the absence of necessary materials, this Court may kindly consider acquitting the appellant of the conviction. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the victim (PW-1) has clearly deposed the conduct of the appellant in her statement recorded under Section 6 164 CrPC and in the Court statement and the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 11. The issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the testimony of the victim deserves acceptance and whether the prosecution has established the case of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 12. It is pertinent to observe that the question whether conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault/rape is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in a catena of judgments and has held that the sole testimony of the victim if found reliable can be the sole ground for convicting the accused and that the creditworthy testimony of the victim in cases of such nature deserves acceptance. 13. Insofar as, age of the victim on the date of the commission of the offence is concerned, she was admittedly 63 years old at the time of the unsavory incident. 14. Further, upon perusal of the testimony made by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it is observed that 7 she know and recognize appellant Munna Satnami, as he resides in her village. The incident occurred on 01.06.2021. She live alone in her house. On the night of the incident, she was sleeping when, around 12:00-1:00 am, Munna Satnami from her village entered her room by removing the iron rod from her door. At that time, the light bulb in her room was on, which allowed her to recognize the appellant. The appellant was wearing a gamcha (a type of cloth) on his head. Thereafter, he forcibly lay down on her bed and committed rape. When she tried to scream, he covered her mouth and committed rape two to three times, threatening her that if she told anyone, he would kill her. After that, he left for his house. She didn't tell anyone about the incident due to fear. Thereafter, On 02.06.2021, the appellant again came to her house around 12:00 P.M., covered her mouth to prevent her from screaming, and threatened to kill her. He lay down on her bed, removed her saree, blouse, and lehenga, and committed rape again. After the rape, he continued to threaten her with death. Thereafter, he forcibly inserted his genitals into her mouth. The accused had brought a packet of Himgange oil, which he applied to her genitals, causing severe burning sensation. He then raped her again on the floor, physically assaulted her, and repeatedly threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident. After leaving her unconscious, the appellant fled the scene. The next morning, she put on my clothes and informed her daughter about 8 the incident. She then went to Nandghat Police Station to report the incident. 15. The victim has been examined as (PW-1). In paras 2 and 3 of her statement, she has stated that the incident occurred in the month of Jeth. On the day of the incident, she had dinner at night, locked the door of her house, and went to sleep in her room with the lights on. Around 11-12 P.M., appellant Munna, entered my room by removing the latch from the door. Since the lights were on, she recognized him. Munna Baghel came to her bed and committed rape. When she resisted, he threatened to kill her and choked her. When she tried to scream, he covered her mouth and removed the light bulb. He then threw her to the ground and continued assaulting her, warned her that if she told anyone, he would kill her. Afterward, he left her house, threatening her. She didn't tell anyone about the incident out of fear. The next day, she again locked the door from the inside and went to sleep after dinner, the appellant again entered into her house by opening the door in the same manner, committed rape and choked her, threatening that if she told anyone about the incident, he would kill her. The appellant raped her on the bed, closed the chimney of her house, and stayed inside for about an hour. After that, he inserted his genitals into her mouth, and when she resisted, he didn't listen. He then tore open a packet of Himgange oil and poured it into her genital area, causing a burning sensation. Following this, the accused applied the same oil to his genitals and again committed 9 rape, throwing her to the ground, which resulted in injuries and scratches on her back. When she tried to resist and scream, the accused slapped her on the cheek and pulled her hair, warned her that if she told anyone about the incident, he would kill her. He had removed her saree and blouse, and she lay there helplessly throughout the night, unable to sleep. The next morning, she found the door's latch on the floor. 16. Daughter of the victim (PW-2) has stated in paras 2, 3 and 4 of her statement that on 03.06.2021, her mother called her, saying she was not feeling well, so she and her husband went to Sambalpur village. Upon arrival, she saw the door was broken, and her mother's health was not good. Her mother started crying upon seeing her and told her that on 01.06.2021, around 11-12 P.M., appellant Munna entered her room by removing the door's latch. He then raped her after choking her, threatening to kill her if she told anyone. Her mother tried to scream, but Munna choked her and left nail marks on her neck and mouth. He also physically assaulted her and stayed in her room for about an hour. Her mother also told her that on 02.06.2021, Munna again entered her room in the same manner, choked her, and committed rape on the bed and then on the floor. Despite her pleading with folded hands, Munna didn't listen and continued the assault, even slapped her. The appellant removed all of her mother's clothes and forcibly inserted his genitals into her mouth. He then took out a packet of Himgange oil and inserted it into her genital area. After applying 10 the said oil to his genitals, he again committed rape, throwing her to the ground, which resulted in injuries and scratches on her back and chest. Before leaving, the appellant threatened her mother, saying that if she told anyone about the incident, he would kill her. 17. Now coming to the medical evidence adduced; as per the medical opinion contained in the MLC report (Ex.P-10), pubic hair present, scarcely present, contusion seen around junction of labia, redness seen. On P/V examination, two vaginal air died slide prepared and sent for FSL Raipur finger freely passed through introitus, redness present on mucosa, tenderness present around labia junction, other abrasions not seen, as per gynecological opinion, if any complication or signs or symptoms occurs, provisional diagnosis signs of external injury present around private part, final opinion after FSL reports. 18. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more 11 relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable 12 the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 19. Considering the statement of the victim (PW-1) before the trial Court who has specifically stated that present appellant forcibly committed rape on her, which is corroborated by her medical report, which goes to show that she received injuries on her person and statement of her daughter (PW-2) who also deposed against the appellant, further considering the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, MLC report of the victim (Ex.P-10) conducted by Mr. Deepmala Rani Mandal (PW-5), the material available on record and the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgment (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 450, 376(2)(n), 377 and 506 Part-II of the IPC, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 20. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 21. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 13 22. The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. 23. The Registry is also directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil