Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 272 (CHH)

Hukum Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

2009-10-23

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2009
JUDGMENT The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment dated 25.9.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 248/2005 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 1.8.2005 FIR Ex. P-13 was lodged by the prosecutrix to the effect that on 30.7.2005 when she was at home, the accused/appellant who happens to be her father-in- law came to her, offered her some sweet and thereafter committed rape on her. Further case of the prosecution is that when in the night she was sleeping with her husband, accused/appellant again came there and set her on fire. Thereafter, she was sent for medical examination to District Hospital, Durg where Dr. (Smt.) Shobha Rajput (PW-10) examined her and gave her report Ex. P-10. In the medical report, the doctor has opined that the prosecutrix was having 40 per cent burn injuries, her secondary sexual characteristics were fully developed, hymen was absent and two fingers easily entered her vagina. Accused/appellant was also sent for medical examination to Community Health Centre, Ahiwara where Dr. Dushyant Khosla examined him and vide his report Ex. P-24 he opined that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Vaginal slides were prepared and sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P-21 and the report of the chemical analyzer is Ex. P-23. Thereafter, on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. However, he has been acquitted of the charge under section 307 IPC. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the statement of the prosecutrix being full of contradictions is not worthy of safe reliance. However, he has been acquitted of the charge under section 307 IPC. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the statement of the prosecutrix being full of contradictions is not worthy of safe reliance. According to him in paragraph No.6 of her examination she has stated that for fear of humiliation in the society, she put herself on fire whereas in paragraph No.3 of her examination in chief she has stated that the accused/appellant had put her on fire and it is on the basis of such contradictory version the trial Court has acquitted him of the offence under section 307 IPC. He submits that once on the same set of evidence the accused/appellant has been acquitted of the offence under section 307 IPC, he could not have been convicted for the offence under section 376 (1) IPC when no other material was brought forth by the prosecution. He further submits that there is contradiction in her statement and in the FIR with respect to the time of the incident as in the FIR the time has been shown as 6 p.m. whereas in her statement it is shown as 10 p.m. According to him when the prosecutrix is not sure about the time of incident, it is proved that she has made false allegations against the accused/appellant. He submits that the prosecutrix has not made any attempt to save herself nor has she raised any alarm when the offence was being committed by the accused/appellant. He submits that the medical report also does not support the case of the prosecution as the doctor who examined her has opined that she was habitual to sexual intercourse and therefore no definite opinion regarding rape could be given. The last contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the most important witness could have been the husband of the prosecutrix namely Raghunandan Yadav but he has not been examined by the prosecution and therefore the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that though the prosecutrix has been declared hostile, she has categorically stated in her evidence that she was subjected to rape by the accused/appellant. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that though the prosecutrix has been declared hostile, she has categorically stated in her evidence that she was subjected to rape by the accused/appellant. She has further stated that as in the sweet given to her by the accused/appellant there was some intoxicant, she was not in a position to save herself from the beastly clutches of the appellant. He submits that in the cross examination the prosecutrix has categorically stated as to the manner in which she was ravished by the accused/appellant when her husband was not at home. According to him no material has been brought by the defence to show as to why the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and in these circumstances the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be disbelieved. He further submits that the report of the incident was lodged immediately and even if the husband of the prosecutrix has not been examined, her testimony which is supported by the evidence of her father Gokul Yadav (PW-5) who has categorically stated that his daughter i.e. the prosecutrix has told him that the accused/appellant committed rape on her and on account of which she made an attempt to commit suicide, is sufficient for the conviction of the appellant. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 9. On subjecting the evidence on record to close analysis, it is clear beyond shadow of doubt that the prosecutrix was ravished by the accused/appellant who unfortunately happens to be her father in law. In her evidence she has stated that not only she was sexually assaulted by the accused/appellant but an attempt was also made by the accused/appellant to brand her as insane. Prosecutrix was also made to give the statement of her being insane just to secure acquittal. There is not even an iota of evidence in support of the stand taken by the accused/appellant regarding his false implication in the case. The most unfortunate and deplorable aspect of the case in hand is that accused is none else but the father in law of the prosecutrix herself who has posed an indelible scar on the sacred relationship between father in law and daughter in law. The most unfortunate and deplorable aspect of the case in hand is that accused is none else but the father in law of the prosecutrix herself who has posed an indelible scar on the sacred relationship between father in law and daughter in law. When after marriage a girl steps in her matrimonial home, the father-in-law is supposed to act as father-in-fact and make every effort to get the heap of hopes cherished by her in her mental slate realized more than her expectations. If a father-in-law assumes such a beastly character and instead of saving the dignity of his own daughter in law tries to rewrite the history anew putting a never-washable blot on her psyche, they ought not to be let loose, rather tightening the noose around his neck should be the ultimate judicial desirability for undoing the injustice. 10. Having come across the entire pros and cons of the matter the only conclusion suitable for the offenders like appellant herein is the apathy not sympathy. Accordingly, this Court finds nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and to blow a life to the appeal. Appeal being lifeless is dismissed.