Dismissed

Smt. Shanti Devi @ Shukhamain and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jul 2022CRA/50/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the criminal appeal filed by a mother and her husband against their conviction and sentenced imprisonment. The Court upheld the impugned judgment, rejecting claims of insufficient corroboration for the victim's testimony regarding abduction, forced labor, and rape.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the impugned conviction and sentence of the Trial Court were upheld.

Smt. Shanti Devi @ Shukhamain and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2019

¶5

Smt. Shanti Devi @ Shukhamain W/o Surendra Hudiya, aged about 60 years, R/o village Jarhadih, PS – Shankargarh, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj, CG : At present R/o Nagloi, behind Nihal Bihar Daina Dispensary, Delhi, PS Delhi, Delhi

¶6

Surendra Hudiya S/o Late Ramkishan Hudiya, aged about 39 years, R/o Village Hansi, Ward No. 18, Gali No. 7, Purani Sabji Mandi, Swargar Mohalla, Balapthar, City Kotwali,Kila Bazar, District Ishar, Hariyana

¶7

--- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station – Shankargarh, District Balrampur – Ramanujganj, CG

¶10

--- Respondent

¶11

For Appellants	- Shri Kalyan Kalamkar, Advocate
For State	- Shri Kasif Shakeel, Dy. AG

¶12

Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶13

12/07/2022

¶14

The appellants have fled this appeal against the judgment impugned dated 27.11.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur - Ramanujganj, (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 11/2015 convicting them under Sections 363, 366, 367 and 370 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fne of Rs. 200/- on each count, plus default stipulations. In addition, the appellant Surendra Hudiya has also been convicted u/s 376 and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and pay fne of Rs. 200/- u/s 376 IPC and RI for one year with fne of Rs. 100/- u/s 323 IPC, plus default stipulations.

¶15

Facts of the case in brief are that on 18.6.2003 one Bolka (PW-1) – father of the victim had lodged a report in Police Station – Shankargarh

¶16

¶17

stating therein that on 14.6.2003 in the evening his 10 year old daughter had left his house without informing anyone. On this information of the complainant, missing report No. 06/2003 was recorded and based on that FIR (Ex.P-14) was registered. During investigation, the police came to know that it is the accused/appellants herein who had allured the victim herein and one other girl who now is dead, to Delhi. The victim was then recovered from Delhi and brought back to Chhattisgarh and was handed over to her brother – Jamodar (PW-2). After being recovered, the victim disclosed that she was taken to Delhi by the accused/appellants in a truck where she was made to do the menial work in the houses of others for which she was getting Rs. 400-500/-. She also disclosed that accused Surendra Hudiya used to come drunk and make physical relations with her by force on account of which she became pregnant and delivered a male child. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was fled for the same offences as in the FIR, followed by framing of charge accordingly. Appellants however denied the charge framed against them and claimed trial.

¶18

In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the same. They however did not examine anyone in their defence.

¶19

Learned Court below by the judgment impugned has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as described above. Hence this appeal.

¶20

Counsel for the appellants submits that the fndings recorded by the Court below holding the accused/appellants guilty as mentioned

¶21

¶22

above are not based on just and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. He submits that version of the victim and the complainant has not been corroborated by any independent witness but even then the Court below relied upon the same and proceeded against the appellants. He submits that there are several contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the important witnesses including the victim on material particulars, and therefore, the conviction of the appellants based on such shaky testimony cannot stand.

¶23

Learned State counsel however supports the judgment impugned to be just and proper and submits that the testimony of the victim (PW7) and that of her father and brother (PW-1 and PW-2 respectively) clearly establishes involvement of the accused/appellants in the crime in question, and therefore, the well reasoned fndings recorded by the Court below cannot be dislodged.

¶24

Heard counsel for the parties at length and gone through the material available on record including the judgment impugned in depth.

¶25

Victim (PW-7) has stated that the accused/appellants had taken her and her cousin to Delhi, and 10-15 days thereafter her cousin was got married to some boy. She has stated that in Delhi she lived in the house of the appellants and that accused Surendra used to keep an evil eye on her. Accused Surendra, according to this witness, used to make physical relations with her, and her resistance for that resulted in her subjection to beating by him. She has further stated that due to the physical relations made by accused Surendra, she became pregnant and later delivered a male child. Thereafter, she came down to Chhattisgarh along with the son of accused/appellants namely Rajbir, and started living with him as husband and wife. Recovery memo by which the victim was recovered from Delhi is Ex. P-2 and the consent

¶26

¶27

memo for her medical examination is Ex. P-1. In cross examination also this witness remained frmly stuck to what she stated in the examination-in-chief. Bolka (PW-1) – the father of the victim has also supported the case of the prosecution and stated that the victim was recovered from Delhi and that after recovery she had informed that in Delhi appellants used to engage her in menial work for which she was getting Rs. 400-500/-, and that after getting back home drunk, accused Surendra used to make physical relations with her and her refusal for that resulted in beating by him. According to this witness, the physical relations between her and the accused made her deliver a male child. This witness has clarifed that whatever he stated, is based on the information provided by the victim herself and all this is not based on any guess-work. Almost similar is the statement of Jamodar (PW-3) – the brother of the victim. Thus the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 if read together, leads to the conclusion that the accused/appellants who happen to be husband and wife, had taken the victim to Delhi, engaged her in menial work and that accused Surendra used to physically exploit her after getting drunk. Jainu Ram (PW-5) has also supported the case

¶28

of the prosecution, though partially. Dr. Shashikala Toppo (PW-11) is the witness who medically examined the victim and ultimately noticing several physical characteristics she opined her to be habitual to sexual intercourse. There is nothing unusual in the opinion of the doctor as at the time of examination the victim had two children. R.L. Tonde (PW-8) is the investigating ofcer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence adduced by the prosecution thus appears to be worthy of credence and being so the Court below has not committed any error in making the same basis for arriving at the conclusion by way of judgment impugned.

¶29

¶30

The minute factual analysis made in the light of evidence of the witnesses thus establishes that the accused/appellants kidnapped the victim, forced her to illicit sexual intercourse and using force they made her to work in the house of others as menial worker. The testimony of the victim also demonstrates that whenever she refused for having sex, accused Surendra used to beat her also, and that out of the physical relations she gave birth to a male child. The involvement of the accused/appellants in the crime in question is thus fully established, and there is no scope for any interference with the fndings recorded by the Court below convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants as above.

¶31

In the result, the appeal is without any substance and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶34

Jyotishi

Smt. Shanti Devi @ Shukhamain and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanti Devi @ Shukhamain and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Shankar Sagar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shobhit Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmveer Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh