The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in an appeal against conviction and sentence under the POCSO Act, upheld the lower court's decision finding the appellant guilty of raping a minor step-daughter and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
Conviction and sentence affirmed; appeal dismissed.
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
CRA No. 310 of 2015
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Smt. Laxmin Tondey, Advocate For Respondent/State: Shri Vivek Sharma, GA
Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya Judgment On Board by Pritinker Diwaker, J
14/08/2018
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Balodabazar, in special Sessions Trial No. 01/2014 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 376, 506-II IPC & Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 506-II IPC, plus default stipulations.
2
3
found on the underwear of the prosecutrix, vaginal slides and underwear of the accused/appellant. After completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused/appellant u/s 376, 506 IPC and section 5 (l) (n) and 6 of the POCSO Act followed by framing of charge by the Court below under Section 376, 506 (Part-II) IPC and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
4
(iv) That the medical report of the prosecutrix also does not support the case of the prosecution.
5
years. According to this witness, the accused/appellant had also threatened her of being killed in case she disclosed the incident to anyone, and that he had also got discontinued her studies. The incident of her molestation at the hands of the accused/appellant was disclosed by the prosecutrix to her mother, maternal aunt and maternal grand-mother. In crossexamination also, this witness remained firm to what she has stated in the examination-in-chief. Reshma Fatwani alias Manju (PW-3) – mother of the prosecutrix has also supported the case of the prosecution stating that earlier also the prosecutrix had informed her about being subjected to physical relations by the accused/appellant and that when she asked him as to why he was doing like that, he told her that he did not spare even his real daughter then how to leave the step daughter. According to this witness, the accused had threatened her also of being finished in case she opened her mouth elsewhere. Thereafter, she somehow went to her sister and mother and informed them about the incident and then lodged the report. Dr. Anita Verma (PW-4) is the witness who medically examained the prosecutrix and gave her report Ex. P-8. According to this witness, the vagina of the prosecutrix easily entered two fingers and that she was habitual to sexual intercourse. Shobhraj (PW-5) and Suresh Lakhwani (PW-6) have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. Pawan Singh (PW-7) is the Patwari who prepared spot map Ex. P-6. Dr. (Smt.) Shesha Sexena (PW-8) is the Forensic Expert who has stated that on examination of the
6
articles produced before her, she found presence of spermatozoa on the undergarments of the accused, that of the prosecutrix and also the vaginal slides vide Ex. P-11. D.K. Netam (PW-9) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution. K.S. Usendi (PW-10) is the witness who assisted in the investigation. Accused/appellant was also sent for medical examination vide Ex. P-14 and by way of an unexhibited report he was found capable of sexual intercourse.
7
This Court does not find any substance in the argument of counsel for the appellant that the medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. It is for the reason that when the prosecutrix was raped continuously for two long years, there was no question of any injury on her private part or any other part of the body. There appears to be no reason for this Court to discedit the evidence of the prosecutrix who has put a pathetic depiction of being subjected to rape by her step father – the custodian in civilized words. His wolfish conduct in ravishing the teen ager step daughter instead of providing a caring hand for bringing her up, does not make him plead pardon.
Sd/Sd/(Pritinker Diwaker) (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Judge
Jyotishi
Rajesh Fatwani alias Purushwani
State of Chhattisgarh
Pritinker Diwaker
Gautam Chourdiya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
