Allowed

Dokra @ Rajendra Rathiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Jun 2023CRA/1345/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction for rape and obscene acts, this High Court held that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant. The Court found the prosecutrix's testimony contradicted key witnesses who saw the parties naked together, suggesting consent rather than force. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted.

What did the court decide?

The judgment under challenge is set aside; the appellant is acquitted and set at liberty forthwith.

Dokra @ Rajendra Rathiya Vs State Of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHA TTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 1345 of 2014

¶5

Dokra @ Rajendra Rathiya, S/o Surjamani Rathiya, Aged about 21 Years, R/o Village Bansmuda, Police Station- Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through- Station House Officer, Police StationKharsiya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶12

Judgment on Board (23/06/2023)

¶13

Arvind Singh Chandel, J.

¶14

The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been moved by the accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29^th November, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.53/2014, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶15

¶16

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code	Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further six months additional rigorous imprisonment
Under Section 450 of	rigorous imprisonment for 05 years
the Indian Penal Code	and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine further three months additional rigorous imprisonment

¶17

In the present case, victim PW-1 is a 25 years old lady. According to the case of prosecution, on 18.09.2013, the prosecutrix (PW-1) was at her home, her uncle Ram Aadhar on account of being paralysed was lying asleep in his room, whereas her aunt Geeta had gone out to the field. The main door of the house was open. At about 02:30 PM, the present appellant allegedly entered in the house of the prosecutrix with intention to outrage her modesty. He threw her on the bed and after removing her clothes forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. At that very moment, her sister-in-law (bhabhi), namely, Geeta Chouhan (PW-2) and Kaushilya (PW-3) reached there and saw the appellant there. Laxmin and Shushila also reached there and on seeing them, the appellant ran away from the spot. Thereafter, the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to them and the matter was reported by her in the police station vide FIR Ex.P/1. She was medically examined by Dr. Lalita Rathiya (PW8) and her report is Ex.P/14. Statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

¶18

¶19

On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC.

¶20

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and brought into record 24 documents. No defence witness was examined. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶21

On completion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶22

It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that without there being any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record, the trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant. It is further argued that the medical examination report of the prosecutrix is found to be negative and as opined by the doctor, the prosecutrix was found to be habitual in sexual intercourse and no internal or external injuries were found on her body nor was her private part found injured. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded before the trial Court and also in her crossexamination categorically admitted that the appellant did not commit any sexual intercourse with her. Rather, there was a dispute between them and, therefore, she lodged the report against him. Thus, on the basis of her statement, the conviction

¶23

¶24

of the appellant is not sustainable.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment. Referring to the statements of Geeta Chouhan (PW-2) and Kaushilya (PW-3), it is argued by the State counsel that when these witnesses reached the spot, they found the prosecutrix and the appellant naked in a room of her house. Further referring to the statement of Dr. Lalita Rathiya (PW-8), it is argued that the prosecutrix was feeble minded and, therefore, considering the entire evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.

¶26

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Court below both oral and documentary.

¶27

Undisputedly, conviction of the appellant is based upon the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-1), Geeta Chouhan (PW-2) and Kaushilya (PW-3). It is also not in dispute that after the alleged incident, the prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Lalita Rathiya (PW-8), wherein it was found by her that no external or internal injuries were present on the private part or any other part of the body of the prosecutrix and it was opined by the doctor that hymen was old ruptured and two fingers easily entered inside her private part and she was found to be habitual to sexual intercourse.

¶28

¶29

In her Court statement, the prosecutrix (PW-1) in examination-inchief itself deposed that since a dispute had taken place between her and the appellant, she went to police station and lodged the report. She was declared hostile and a note has also been written by the learned trial Judge that prima facie it appears that she is mentally retarted. Dr. Lalita Rathiya (PW-8) also deposed in her Court statement that it was found by her that the prosecutrix was mentally ill. But, this witness, on being asked by the learned trial Judge, admitted that it took some time to the prosecutrix to understand things but after explaining she was able to understand the things. Geeta Chouhan (PW-2), in her cross-examination in Paragraph-9, also admitted that the prosecutrix understands the meaning of things very well and she understands her interests very well and she had a good sense. Looking to the above admission made by Geeta Chouhan (PW2), who is a relative of the prosecutrix, as well as the admission made by Dr. Lalita Rathiya (PW-8), it appears that though the prosecutrix was of weak mind, she was able to understand things well up to her interests and she was able to tell good or bad happened to her.

¶30

With regard to the incident, the prosecutrix (PW-1), after declaring her hostile, in Paragraph-5 of her examination, deposed that at the time of incident, when she was inside her house, the appellant entered there and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. This witness, in her cross-examination in

¶31

¶32

paragraph-10, further admitted that the appellant had done a quarrel with her and, therefore, she moved to lodge the report. In paragraph-12, she herself admitted that the incident in question did not take place with her. In paragraph-15, she admitted that it is fair to say that the appellant did not do anything wrong with her and in paragraph-17, she also admitted that a quarrel had taken place between her and the appellant near the bore and, therefore, she moved to lodge the report against him. Further, the prosecutrix repeatedly deposed that only a dispute had taken place between her and the appellant and the appellant did not commit any forcible sexual intercourse with her.

¶33

The trial Court convicted the appellant on the basis of the statement of Geeta Chouhan (PW-2) to that she had seen the prosecutrix and the appellant naked inside the house of the prosecutrix. Geeta Chouhan (PW-2) deposed that at the time of incident, when she reached inside the room, she saw that the appellant and the prosecutrix were standing there in naked position and having seen her both the prosecutrix and the appellant became panic and the appellant ran away from there. Kaushilya (PW-3) also deposed that when she reached in the room, the appellant fled from the spot. From the statements of these two witnesses only, it is established that when they reached in the room, at that time it was seen by them that the appellant and the prosecutrix were in naked condition. As the prosecutrix has not stated anything that the appellant has

¶34

¶35

committed any forcible sexual intercourse with her, even if the statements of Geeta Chouhan (PW-2) and Kaushilya (PW-3) are taken as they are, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the act in question was done with the prosecutrix with her own consent. She was a major lady of 25 years age and the evidence on record go to show that she was a consenting party. Hence, no case is made out against the appellant.

¶36

From the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant and he is entitled to get benefit of doubt.

¶37

As a consequence, the appeal is allowed. The judgment under challenge is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He is reported to be in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶38

Sd/Sd/-

¶39

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Judge

¶40

Vasant

Dokra @ Rajendra Rathiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dokra @ Rajendra Rathiya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagchand Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Hiru Kodaku Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Sukho Bai Vs (Deleted) Smt. Amrita Devi (Died) Though Lrs.

Sheetal Somawar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Salmon Ram @ Lal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mitthu Kawasi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh