In an appeal against conviction for rape and unnatural offense, the High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside the lower court's finding. The appellate court held the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of corroboration and suspicious evidence.
Conviction and sentence set aside; accused stands acquitted.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 13/07/2018
Judgment delivered on : 06.10.2018
CRA No. 554 of 2002
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Smt. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For State : Shri Arvind Dubey, Penal Lawyer.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C A V Judgment
06/10/2018
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2002 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 156/1999 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 450 and 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and RI for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.
accused/appellant came to her house and asked her about the other members of the family. After knowing the fact that prosecutrix husband is not in the house, the accused/appellant sent Lal Kumar (brother-in-law) to home of one Ravi and thereafter got hold prosecutrix and forcibly raped her against her will. After accused/appellant left the house, the prosecutrix went to the field and narrated the facts to her husband. Her husband informed the Panch, Patel of the village regarding alleged commission of offence. Upon hearing this, they gave assurance to the husband of the prosecutrix regarding taking action against the accused /appellant but they did not take any action against him. Therefore, the prosecutrix, after 13 days of the incident, filed a written report in the police station, Kharsia. Based on this report, offence under Section 450 & 376 IPC were registered against the accused/appellant. After that prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. R. Lalita Rajwala (PW-6) who gave her report vide Ex. P/8. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police for the offences under Section 450 and 376 IPC followed by framing of charge by the Court accordingly.
sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above in Para 1 of the judgment.
her in bed (khat) and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. After some time Lal Kumar came back and accused ran away. In the cross-examination, prosecutrix admitted that she did nothing except crying. Faguram (PW-2) stated that prosecutrix is his wife. While he was doing some agricultural work in the field, prosecutrix and his brother Lal Kumar came there crying and told him that Pyari Lal (accused) had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Upon hearing this, he (Faguram) went to the village Panch Patel and told them about the incident. They assured him to settle the matter and suggested him not to go to the police station. When no action was taken by them, they went to police station after few days and filed written complaint Ex.P- 1.
prosecutrix and the doctor who medically examined her. After examining the statement of witness Lal Kumar (PW-3) who happens to be the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, that when he reached the house he saw accused and prosecutrix in compromising position, It appears surprising that the incident went unnoticed by neighbours Nirmal and Shyam Kumar. It is also indicative of the fact that no resistance was made by the prosecutrix at all and the sexual intercourse between two was consensual. The evidence of the witnesses are also suggestive of the fact that had brother-in-law of the prosecutrix not being into the house probably she would not have raised her cries. Delay in lodging the FIR further adds to the doubt.
Sd/Rajani Dubey (Judge)
Prakash
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 450 and 376 IPC stands good in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Pyari Lal @ Parega
State of Chhattisgarh
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
