Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 223 (CHH)

SUKHLAL v. STATE OF M. P. (NOW CG. )

2006-03-30

D.R.DESHMUKH

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.12.1989 delivered by Shri V.C. Agrawal, Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Case No. 72/1989 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 354 I.PC. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The factual matrix in brief is that the appellant was prosecuted under Section 376 I.P.C. for committing rape in the agricultural field on the prosecutrix, a deaf girl aged about 14 years, on 3-12-1988 in the afternoon. F.I.R. was lodged by the prosecutrix on 4.12.1988 stating that while she was returning from her aunt's house with the fire-wood, the appellant intercepted her and felling her down near the field committed rape on her. 3. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. Mrs. Chelani on 4.12.1988. No injury either on the Labia Minora or on the Labia Majora was seen. Hymen was irregular. There was no fresh tear present. Signs of inflammation or oozing of blood were not present. Vagina admitted one finger with difficulty. No definite opinion about rape was given. The Chaddi of the prosecutrix and the vaginal slides were sent along with the Chaddi of the appellant for chemical examination. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory EX.P.8 shows that presence of blood, semen or human spermatozoa was not confirmed either on the vaginal slides or on the underwear of the prosecutrix. 4. During her evidence, the prosecutrix stated on oath that the appellant did not commit any sexual intercourse with her but had caught hold of her and had made her to lie. She clearly stated that the appellant did nothing further. Kunti Bai P.W.3 also deposed in paragraph 4 that the prosecutrix had told her that the appellant had only held her. 5. Learned trial Judge upon consideration of the evidence led by the prosecutrix found that the offence under Section 376 LP.C was not proved against the appellant. However, relying upon the testimony of the prosecutrix and Asha Bai P.W.2, the learned trial judge convicted the appellant under Section 354 I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid in paragraph. 6. Shri Ratan Pushti, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecutrix is a wholly unreliable witness and conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge deserve to be set aside on this ground alone. 6. Shri Ratan Pushti, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecutrix is a wholly unreliable witness and conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge deserve to be set aside on this ground alone. On the other hand, Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Government Advocate has argued in support of the impugned judgment. 7. Having heard the rival contentions, I have perused the record. The F.I.R. was lodged by the prosecutrix herself on 4.12.88 in which she had given a detailed description of rape having been committed by the appellant on her in the agricultural field. The report of Dr. Mrs. Chelani also did not support the allegations levelled against the appellant in the F.LR. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also did not corroborate the Story of rape by the appellant as alleged in the F.I.R. The prosecutrix clearly admitted in her statement on oath in reply to question No.36 that sexual intercourse had not been committed by the appellant upon her. She deposed that the appellant had merely held her and made her to lie and did nothing further. This statement is also corroborated by Kunti Bai P.W.3 who deposed that the prosecutrix merely told her that the appellant had held her. Thus, in my opinion, the allegation of rape levelled by the prosecutrix against the appellant in the F.I.R. is wholly false and a false report was lodged by her. In this view of the matter, the testimony of the prosecutrix that the appellant had merely held her hand and made her to lie can also not be relied upon as she is a wholly unreliable witness, in view of the false report lodged by her. As stated earlier, the falsity of the F.I.R. is also exposed by the medical examination report by Dr. Mrs Chelani and also the report of the F.S.L. 8. Having thus considered the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety. I am of the considered opinion that the prosecutrix being a wholly unreliable witness, conviction of the appellant under Section 354 I.P.C. and the sentence awarded thereunder deserve to be set aside. 9. In the result the appeal is allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 354 I.P.C. and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. The appellant is acquitted. Appeal Allowed.