Allowed

Yadumani Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Apr 2024CRA/575/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction for house-trespass and rape under Sections 450 and 376(1) IPC. The court found contradictions, absence of protest or injuries, and conduct indicating consensual relations, so the prosecutrix's testimony did not inspire confidence; the appellant was acquitted and the conviction set aside.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted of offences under Sections 450 and 376(1) IPC; conviction and sentence set aside; bail bond to continue for six months under Section 437-A CrPC.

Yadumani Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 575 of 2011

¶4

Yadumani Sahu S/o Banshi Ram Sahu aged about 38 years, occupation – shopkeeper, R/o village – Kotba – Tilgora, Tahsil – Patthalgaon, District – Jashpur (C.G.)

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Bagbahar District – Jaspur (C.G.)

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For Appellant : Ms. Chetna Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board

¶11

23.04.2024

¶12

This appeal arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2011 passed by the Learned Special Judge, (Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes), Prevention of Atrocities Act, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in special Criminal Case No. 36/2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 450 and 376(1) of IPC and sentence him R.I for 3 years and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one month and R.I for 7 years with fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine further R.I for one month respectively. Both the sentences are run concurrently.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that the prosecutrix has lodged

¶14

¶15

a report on 22.09.2008 at Police Station Bagbahar against the appellant alleging in it that on 19.06.2008 when she had gone to the shop of the appellant to purchase grocery items she exchanged her mobile number with him. On the next day i.e. on 20.06.2008 the appellant came to her house and committed rape upon her. She requested him not to do so because of her pregnancy but he was not convinced and has committed rape upon her, she informed the incident to her husband and her husband has also tried to convince the appellant but in spite of convince he threaten him. After this incident also he regularly come to her house and made physical relation with her, therefore she has lodged the report. On the report of the prosecutrix the unnumbered FIR Ex. P-6 was registered by the police for the offence under Section 450, 376, 506-B of IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. The numbered FIR Ex. P-10 has been registered for the offence under Section 450, 376, 506-B of IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. The prosecutrix was sent for her medical examination to Community Health Centre, Pathalgaon where PW-9 Dr. Smt. Anita Minj has examined her and gave her report Ex. P-12 A. After examining her the doctor has not noticed any external injury on her body and opined that no recent sign of sexual intercourse seen. Sign of pregnancy present she advised for UPT test, USG

¶16

¶17

abdomen for confirmation of her pregnancy. The spot map Ex.P-14 was prepared by the police and Ex.P-4 was prepared by the Patwari. The appellant was arrested on 23.09.2008 and he to was sent for his medical examination to Primary Health Centre, Kotba where he has been examined by PW-3 Dr. R.Toppo who after examination gave report Ex.P-5 after his examination the doctor has opined that the appellant is capable to perform sexual intercourse. The undergarments of the prosecutrix as well as the appellant was also seized and the same was sent for its FSL examination to Regional FSL, Raipur from where the report Ex.P-18 was received and according to which the semen and sperm were found on the slide and underwear of the appellant whereas no semen and sperms were found on other articles. The statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C have been recorded. The social status certificate Ex.P-2 of the prosecutrix has also been seized vide seizure memo Ex. P1. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 450, 376, 506-B of IPC and 3(1)(xii) and 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act before the learned trial Court.

¶18

The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence of Section 450, 376 (1), 506-B of

¶19

¶20

IPC and 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

¶21

In order to establish charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined twelve witnesses, statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him and plead innocence.

¶22

After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish their case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material, omission and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The report has been lodged belatedly and there is no sufficient explanation for delay in lodging the report. From the evidence of the prosecutirx herself, it appears that she was having affair with the appellant and engaged in consensual physical relation with him. The manner in which the allegation of rape she has leveled against the appellant, no offence of rape is made out. There is no injuries found on the body of the prosecutrix. As per the

¶24

¶25

evidence of the prosecutrix she has informed the incident to her husband despite that no action was being taken against the appellant yet she has engaged in making physical relation with the appellant on various occasion . Thus the alleged offences are not made out against the appellant and he is entitle for acquittal.

¶26

Per contra learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient to hold guilty of the appellant for the alleged offences. The prosecutrix have stated in her deposition the manner in which she was sexually exploited by the appellant. The reason for delay in FIR has also been explained that due to her social status and fear she could not lodged the report. She would also submit that after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and sentenced him which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶28

PW-4, prosecutrix have stated in her evidence that the appellant was running grocery shop and she had gone to

¶29

¶30

the grocery shop to purchase some grocery articles, at that time they exchanged their mobile numbers and on the date of incident the appellant informed that her he is coming to his house. At about 10-11 a.m, the appellant came to her house and she was all alone in her house. The appellant has taken her towards the bed and after removing her and his cloths, he committed rape upon her. After one-two days of the date of incident at about 10-11 a.m, he again came to her house and against made physical relation with her. When she informed her husband about the incident, her husband had gone to the appellant and informed about the same to his parents. After about 4-6 days of the said incident the appellant against came to her house but at that time her husband was in her house and a complaint was made against the conduct of the appellant to the Sarpanch and the Secretary of the village and when the appellant was not convinced despite having advice given by the panchayat persons and her family members, she has lodged the report. In cross examination she denied that she has purchase the grocery from the shop of the appellant worth Rs. 4,000/- on credit and since she was not paying the amount of the grocery items, the appellant came to her house. She also denied that the villagers were gathered for compromise between them. She admitted in her cross

¶31

¶32

examination that her house is adjoining to the house of others and it is in-close vicinity. If any hue and cry is being made in her house the persons of her adjoining houses may hear the noise and may saw the incident from outside. She admitted that she has not informed her husband about first two incident of rape. She further admitted that she has not tried to protest to save herself at the time of incident. In para 24 of her statement she described the manner in which act of physical relation the appellant made with her after removing of her cloths and his cloths. From perusal of para 24 of her evidence it appears that she was the consenting party in making physical relation with the appellant under the manner in which she narrate the incident.

¶33

PW-5, husband of the prosecutrix stated in his deposition on the date of incident when he had gone to his work in another village and when he return back at 7-8 p.m. his wife informed him about the incident. He convinced the appellant by calling a meeting of a person of a community and village despite that the appellant did not stopped his act and then on being advised given by the Sarpanch he has lodged the report. In cross examination he admitted that after 15-20 days of the date of incident he had gone to the police station to lodge the report. He further

¶34

¶35

admitted that when his wife informed about the incident on the date of incident itself, he had not lodged any report at that time. He also denied that his wife has purchased the grocery items worth of Rs. 4,000/- from the shop of the appellant on credit and did not pay the amount of the grocery items and to avoid his liabilities to pay the amount to the appellant, he has lodged the report. He further admitted that there is a age gape between him and his wife for about 25 years and the prosecutrix is his third wife.

¶36

PW-9 Dr. Anita Minj while examining the prosecutrix have not noticed any external injury on her body and referred for her pregnancy test.

¶37

The version of the prosecutrix commands great respect and acceptability, but if there are some circumstances which cast some doubt in the mind of the court on the veracity of the prosecutrix's evidence, then it will not be safe to rely on the said version of the prosecutrix. There is contradiction and omissions in the statement of the prosecutrix and her husband. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the prosecutrix must inspire confidence. Even though the

¶38

¶39

testimony of the prosecutrix is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges leveled against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case.

¶40

Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the prosecutrix has not raised any alarm and has not protested at the time of alleged commission of offence, had she being forcefully subjected to forceful sexual intercourse, she may have gave nail scratch marks or teeth bite on the body of the appellant but she did not do so even she has not raised her voice so that the persons of vicinity cane hear her voice to save her. It is not the act of her single turn but it continue repeatedly. From the over all evidence of the prosecutrix, it does not inspired confidence upon the Court that she was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse by the appellant rather it appears that she voluntary engaged in physical relation with the appellant that to consensually.

¶41

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted from the offence of Sections 450, 376 (1) of IPC. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentenced is set aside, the appellant is reported to be on

¶42

¶43

bail, his bail bond shall continue for further period of six months as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶44

The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal ) Judge

¶47

Vaishali

Yadumani Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadumani Sahu 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

Yogendra @ Jugnu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Kumar Dhurandhar Vs Alok Sharma

Balram Bhagat Panda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Tiwari Vs Board Of Revenue

Brijlal Korram Vs Meraj

Pradeep Bhuiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh