High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence for rape. Upheld that delay in FIR due to rain was natural and absence of family grudge ensured statement reliability, affirming conviction under IPC sections 376(1) and 450.
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence for seven years imprisonment affirmed.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.2885 of 1998
Ramawtar Pandeo, S/o. Birjhan, aged 35 years, R/o. Khutara para, Basantpur, District Surguja (CG)
---- Appellant
Versus
The State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh )
---Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Manoj Mishra, Advocate For respondent/State : Shri Anil Pandey, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board
08.11.2017
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.98 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur (CG) in Session Trial No.68/98 wherein the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 450 and 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for each offence.
2 . As per the prosecution case, prosecutrix is the resident of village Khutara para. On 25.12.1997 her husband and son had gone to some other village to discharge their social liability. When the prosecutrix was alone in her house, at about 10.00 pm the accused/appellant entered into the veranda of the house of the prosecutrix where she was sleeping and overpowered her and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her against her will
2
and without her consent. When her husband returned, the prosecutrix informed him about the incident. On the following day it was raining heavily so they did not lodge the report and after two days of the incident, the matter was reported to Police Station Basantpur. After registration of the First Information Report, certain articles were seized from the prosecutrix and from the accused appellant. The prosecutrix and the appellant were sent for medical examination. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded during investigation and after investigation, charge sheet was filed and trial court framed charges as mentioned above to which the accused appellant did not plead guilty. After completion of the trial, the appellant was convicted as mentioned above.
3
4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment of the trial Court is strictly in accordance with law and the same is not liable to be interfered with invoking the jurisdiction of the appeal.
5 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6 . In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
7 . Prosecutrix (PW-1) has deposed that on the date of incident, her husband and son went to the house of one Budhu Pandit for some social obligation, she was alone in her house and she was sleeping in the varenda of the house at night. She further deposed that at night the accused/appellant entered there overpowered her and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent. She further deposed that when her husband returned, she narrated the story to him. On the next day it was raining heavily so they were unable to go to the Police Station and after two days they lodged the report at Police Station Basantpur. She further deposed that the police seized her petticoat and sent her to hospital Wadrafnagar for medical examination. Version of this witness is subjected to searching cross examination, but nothing could be elicited in favour of the appellant. Version of the prosecutrix is supported by version of Manohar Pandeo (PW-2).
4
8 . Manohar Padeo (PW-2) deposed that they went to the house of one Budhu and his wife was alone in the house and he returned to the house late night at about 11 pm. When he returned to the house, his wife informed him that the accused/appellant entered into the house, overpowered her and committed sexual intercourse with her. He further deposed that on the next date it was raining so they were unable to report the matter and on the third day they reported the matter at Police Station. Version of this witness is supported by KMS Khan (PW5) who is the investigating officer. He supported the version of the prosecutrix and her husband that report was lodged by them and he also deposed that he sent the prosecutrix for medical examination and her petticoat was seized.
9 . In the present case, there is a delay of two days in lodging the report and for that the witnesses have explained that due to rain they could not report the matter on the date of the incident or the next day of the incident. The explanation is natural one as the prosecutrix who is a married lady belonging to rural area. There is nothing on record that she falsely implicated the accused/ appellant with whom she or her husband had no enmity. When the explanation is one of the plausible explanation delay in lodging the report is not sufficient to throw overboard the prosecution case.
5
made only after consultation with responsible member of the family. In the present case, the prosecutrix narrated the incident immediately to her husband and then they decided to report the matter. From the examination of the both the witnesses there is nothing on record that they had made any concoction and when there is no grudge against the accused/appellant statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and the same has to be acted upon without any corroboration on medical side or otherwise. Disbelieving the version of the prosecutrix is adding to the insult to the injury because the statement of the prosecutrix will be kept on higher footing than the victim of assault.
11 . From the evidence of the prosecutrix, her husband and statement of the IO, it is established that it was the accused/appellant who committed the sexual intercourse against the will of the prosecutrix and without her consent after entering into her house for commission of offence. The criminal act committed by the accused/appellant is punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC and under Section 450 of the IPC for which the trial Court convicted him and the same is not liable to be interfered with looking to the material placed before the Court. Conviction of the appellant for both the sections is hereby affirmed.
Minimum sentence which can be awarded for offence under Section 376(1) of the IPC is imprisonment for seven years and the trial Court awarded the minimum sentence. Less than the
6
minimum sentence cannot be awarded. Sentence part is also not liable to be interfered with.
13 . Consequently, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
JUDGE
Bini
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR invalidates the prosecution case against the accused.
Whether the consent of the prosecutrix can be inferred given that she was a married woman.
Whether the conviction and sentence under Sections 376(1) and 450 IPC should be upheld on appeal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramawtar Pandeo
The State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh)
Ram Prasanna Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
