Appeal by a convicted appellant against his conviction and sentencing for rape. The court held the prosecution evidence sufficient to sustain findings of rape.
The appeal is dismissed; the judgment impugned is maintained without modification.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR $ma" Eéism:
')
8g? CriminalAgpaal /2006 S.B.
(Criminal Anneal u/s 374 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 against conviction)
APPELLANT\Accused/ : Ballu Rawat Convict(1n Jail) S/O Bhikhu Rawat Aged about 35 years, Occupation-Mazdoori WO Police Station, Bori Distt. Durg CG.)
VERSUS RESPONDENT : State of Chhattisgarh ThroughzPolice Station Bori ‘ Distt. Durg (C.G.)
/ S.T. No. 267/2005 Date of Judgement— 07-1 1-2006X”
Court learned 2nd A S J Durg/
Conv1ct10n u/s— 37% IP C and Sentence 7gis R{With fine of Rs 10667: 1n default of payment of flne 1 month Imprisonment 1n Additional.
APPLICATION U/S 374/CililMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973 AGAINST CONVICTION.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU R
(Hon.Mr.JusticePritinkerDiwaker)
Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 2006
APPELLANT
Ballu Rawat
VERSUS
RES PONDENT
State of Chhattisgarh
Shri Arvind Kumar Dubey counsel for the appellant. Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL for respondent/State.
C RIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE O F CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
J U D G M E N T (05.08.20 1 0)
Thi s appeal is directed agains t t he judgm ent and oderr dated 01107..206 p assed by Additinaio Sessions Jud ge, Dug,r i n Sessinso Taril N.67/2005o2 convicting the accuedappeliants/ udern Se ction 376 ()1 IPC adn senningtec hi m to undrgeo riorousg impisontrnme for seven yreas adn pa yfie nof Rs .1,000, in defa ult o f paymnteoffine to furhter u ndergo rigorous impronmentis fro one m onth. 2 . Case of the prosecutino in brief is that on 15.08.0520 FI R (.PEx-1) wa s lodge d bythe prosutrixec (PW-1), a married l ady aegdau bot 25 years at the relevant time, to the effect thta on tha t da y i n th e morni ng hrsou her daghteru Jyoti ha d gonetothehouse o f th e accused/apellanpt , adn when s he did not return for about two hours, she al so wetn th ere in search of her. When th e prosecutrix reached teh house of th e a ccused/appellant he called her insidethehouse'andcommittd efrci oble sexual intercourse wit h her. After investigation, the chal/an was filed an d the prosecution of the accused/appellantfollowed. l
z g;
mmww
wi’
, two defencewitnessesnamelySuniti (DW—1)and Basanti (DW-2)hav ei also been examinedbythedefenceinsupportofitscase. i i
i l
r57
k
accused/appellant told her that her daughter was in his house; Thereafter while >she was proceeding towards her daughteré accused/appellant dragged her to the court yard, gagged her m0uthi _ , threw her on the cutandcommittedforciblesexuaiintercoursewithhen While resisting the act of the accused/appellant, her bangles are also ‘ stated to havebroken. After commissionoftheoffencethe prosecutrix i stated to have gotbacktoherhouseweepingalongwithherdaughter. l cross—examinationalsonothingextrahasbeenstatedbythisWitnessan her stand taken in the examination—in-chiefheld the ground. Kamlesh Vaishno (PW2)—thehusbandofthe prosecutrixhasstatedthatwhenhe returned homeforhavnnglunch the prosecutrixwasfoundweepingand then entire rncrdentwasnarratedtohimbyher Statement ofthisWitness is also supportedbyJangalu (PW—6)and Shiv Kumar Madharia (PW-7) ‘ who have statedthatthe prosecutrixhadmetthemontheVillagesquare and narratedtheentireinCidentofrape Tirath Das (PW—3) is the Village; Kotwar- who had prepared the spot map. M. ,L. Patel (PW-5) lnvestigatingOfficerhassupportedthecaseoftheprosecution Dr M Cl; Mohnod (PW4) who medically examined the accused/appellant has“ stated that hewascapableof performing sexual intercourse Dr Smt" Manjusa Umradekar (PW—8)whomedicallyexaminedtheprosecutrixhas * l stated thattherewasabrasiononherleftwristandasshewasamarried lady, nodefiniteopinionregardingrapeonhercanbegiven.
ew:n
y W y j
\ a nd being so it is hereby maintained. The appeaL in other words, fails. i i s dismissed as such.
SdlV ‘ ’ PritinkerDiwaker a Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Appeal against conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC and sentence.
Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding of rape on a married prosecutrix.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ballu Rawat
State of Chhattisgarh
Pritinker Diwaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
