Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 139 (CHH)

BYASRAM YADAV v. STATE OF M. P.

2011-04-07

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.8.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 12/1991 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000 in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 5.9.1989 at about 4.55 p.m. FIR Ex. P-2 was lodged by Phul Bai (PW-2) to the effect that on that day when she had gone to her workplace along with her younger sister (PW-3the prosecutrix herein), at about 12.10 afternoon, the appellant who was working as driver in NTPC, took her and her sister to his house on the pretext of taking food. Thereafter, it is alleged that she was turned out of his house by him and after bolting the front door, he entered his house from the back door and put the door on latches. Sometime thereafter hearing the cries of her sister when she banged at the door, the appellant opened the same and then she saw her sister lying unconscious on account of rape being committed by the accused/appellant. Based on this FIR, offence U/S 376 IPC was registered against him, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination on 6.9.1989 vide Ex.P-6 and after completion of investigation, challan was filed by the police on 2.12.1989 for the said offence. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 06 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge 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 in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that present is a case where the statements of Phul Bai (PW-2) and the prosecutrix (PW-3) are wholly unreliable for the reason that while deposing in the Court Phul Bai has given entirely a different story if compared to the FIR lodged by her and the case diary statement. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that present is a case where the statements of Phul Bai (PW-2) and the prosecutrix (PW-3) are wholly unreliable for the reason that while deposing in the Court Phul Bai has given entirely a different story if compared to the FIR lodged by her and the case diary statement. She submits that it is alleged by Phul Bai (PW- 2) that she and the prosecutrix had gone to the house of the accused/appellant where the prosecutrix was subjected to rape by him whereas according to her Court statement she got the information from someone that prosecutrix was seen by him drinking water in the house of the accused/appellant. According to the counsel for the appellant, there are material contradictions in the statement of Phul Bai. In respect of the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-3), it has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that in the Court she has not supported the case of the prosecution as she has not stated anywhere that she was subjected to rape by the accused/appellant. According to the counsel for the accused/appellant, Phul Bai (PW -2) has stated in her evidence that the prosecutrix had disclosed the incident of rape to her about a week thereafter. She submits that case diary statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 30.9.1989 and this inordinate delay in doing so makes it clear that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that medical report of the prosecutrix Ex. P6 is positive and number of internal and external injuries were found on her person. She submits that the prosecutrix has categorically stated that she was taken by the appellant inside his house and after gagging her mouth with a piece of cloth when he mounted on her, she became unconscious and therefore she could not narrate the further incident of rape. She submits that the prosecutrix was found by the police in the house of the accused/appellant in an unconscious state. She submits that the prosecutrix was found by the police in the house of the accused/appellant in an unconscious state. She submits that as prosecutrix and Phul Bai are rustic villagers, that the case diary statement of the prosecutrix was recorded about twenty five days after the incident whereas their court statements were recorded about seven years after the incident, minor contradictions in their statements if any are bound to be there and the same have to be ignored. 7. Prosecutrix (PW-3) has stated in her evidence that she knew the accused/appellant who was the resident of village Lotlota and working in some office at Jamnipali. She has stated that on the date of incident during lunch hours as she was feeling thirsty, she had gone to the house of the accused/appellant for drinking water. On her demand, the accused/appellant gave her a glass of water and when she asked for another glass of water, he caught hold of her hand, dragged her inside his house, bolted the door, made her lie on a cot, mounted on her and on an alarm being raised by her, he gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth. Replying to a question put to the prosecutrix as to what else was done by the accused/appellant after making her lie on the cot and mounting on her, she has stated that except gagging her mouth with a piece of cloth he had not done anything. When this witness was confronted, with her case diary statement Ex. P-3 where she has made a mention that after throwing her on cot, the appellant had upturned her sari up to the waist; she has stated that this statement is true. Thereafter, a question was put to her whether the appellant had committed rape on her, she expressed her ignorance. Thereafter, she has stated that as a piece of cloth was inserted in her mouth, she became unconscious and did not know as to what happened thereafter. According to her, she regained consciousness in the hospital and was not aware as to who shifted her to the hospital or whether the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her or not. She has stated that in the hospital itself her clothes were seized by the police, she was medically examined and after returning there from she narrated the entire incident to her family members. She has stated that in the hospital itself her clothes were seized by the police, she was medically examined and after returning there from she narrated the entire incident to her family members. She' has further stated that Phul Bai (PW -2) is 4-5 years elder to her. In paragraph 8 of her deposition, she has stated that she knew the accused/appellant as she had seen him working in the office but she denied the fact that she used to talk to him. She has stated that on the date of incident she and her sister were working at different places. In paragraph 10 she has stated that the appellant threw her on the cot and when her hand was caught hold of by him, she started crying on which a small towel was inserted in her mouth. She is stated to have regained consciousness in the hospital. She has further clarified that she had not informed the police about the incident because no enquiry was made by it and that after about one month when the police came to make an enquiry, she disclosed the entire incident. Phul Bai (PW-2) - the sister of the prosecutrix has stated in her evidence that she knew the accused/appellant who was resident of village Lotlota which falls after Jamnipali. She has stated that on the date of incident she and her sister had gone to Jamnipali to work as labourer. According to her, she and her sister used to work at different places and usually in lunch hours her sister would come to her but as on the date of incident she did not do that, she started a search for her. Meanwhile, according to her, she was informed by one boy of Jamnipali that he had seen the prosecutrix in the house of the accused/ appellant asking for water. The house of the accused/appellant is stated to be 100 meters away from the workplace of this witness. According to this witness, when she reached the house of the accused/appellant, she heard the cries of the prosecutrix, on which she asked the appellant to open the door but he refused to do that. Thereafter, she went to police station Darri and lodged the report stating that the accused/appellant had made the prosecutrix captive in his house and in spite of her request he did not open the door. Thereafter, she went to police station Darri and lodged the report stating that the accused/appellant had made the prosecutrix captive in his house and in spite of her request he did not open the door. Then, according to her, one policeman had accompanied her to the house of the accused/appellant, made the accused/appellant open the door and after taking the prosecutrix out shifted her to the hospital where she had informed her that on the pretext of giving water, the accused/appellant had dragged her inside the house, threw on a cot, mounted on her and when she raised an alann, a piece of cloth was inserted in her mouth. In paragraph 11 of her deposition, she has stated that while lodging the FIR she had informed the police that on the date of incident she and her sister (prosecutrix) were working at different places; that when the prosecutrix did not come to her during lunch hours she had made a search for her and one boy had told her that the prosecutrix was seen by him in the house of the accused/appellant asking for water; that the house of the accused/appellant was little far from her work place and that even after being requested by her, the accused/appellant had not opened the door but if the same is not mentioned in the same, she could not tell the reason for that. In paragraph 12 of her evidence she has stated that when she was near the house of the accused/ appellant, screams of the prosecutrix were heard by her and about a week after the incident, she was informed by her that the accused/appellant had dragged her inside his house, made her lie on a cot, mounted on her and inserted a piece of cloth in her mouth. On being confronted with her case diary statement Ex. D-1 she has stated in paragraphs 13 to 16 of her deposition that certain things were not disclosed to the police and that she is not aware as how they have been mentioned therein. She has stated that she saw the prosecutrix in the house of the accused/appellant in an unconscious state and before that she had heard her screams and she had lodged the report about the prosecutrix being subjected to rape by the accused/appellant on the basis of assumption. She has stated that she saw the prosecutrix in the house of the accused/appellant in an unconscious state and before that she had heard her screams and she had lodged the report about the prosecutrix being subjected to rape by the accused/appellant on the basis of assumption. She has stated that after remaining in the hospital for a day, the prosecutrix came back to her village and a week thereafter she informed her parents that she was subjected to rape by the accused/appellant. Mahadev Sahu (PW-1) - the witness of house Panchnama has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Mewalal (PW-4) - the witness to the Ex. P-4 and P-5 has not supported anything specific. Dr. (Smt.) N.D. Ram (PW-5) who had medically examined the prosecutrix an 1 given her report Ex. P-6 has stated that there was tear in her vaginal region and blood was oozing from the same, her hymen was torn, she was complaining severe pain, white discharge was found in her private part which according to her was sperm of man. She opined that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse for the first time within 8-10 hours of examination and she was not habitual to the same. This witness has denied that she was pressurized by anyone to give the positive report that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by someone and that at the time of examination she was not having her period. She has further stated that the injuries on the breast and private part of the prosecutrix were due to her subjection to rape and they cannot be self inflicted. B. Panna (PW-6) is the investigating officer who has stated in his evidence that on the report of Phul Bai he had registered the FIR Ex. P-2 and immediately thereafter when he went to the house of the appellant, he found the prosecutrix lying on her bed in unconscious state and then she was shifted to NTPC hospital for medical examination. He has however admitted that case diary statement of the prosecutrix was recorded 25 days after the incident because he was busy in some other work. He has further admitted the fact that vaginal slides and clothes of the prosecutrix were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory because he was busy in some other work. 8. He has however admitted that case diary statement of the prosecutrix was recorded 25 days after the incident because he was busy in some other work. He has further admitted the fact that vaginal slides and clothes of the prosecutrix were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory because he was busy in some other work. 8. Minute examination of the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-3) and her sister Phul Bai (PW-2) makes it clear that on the date of incident the appellant had forcibly taken the prosecutrix inside his house, threw her on the cot and committed rape on her. Though the prosecutrix could not state as to the manner in which she was subjected to rape by the accused/appellant, she has categorically stated that the appellant caught hold of her hand, threw her on the cot, mounted on her but then as she became unconscious, does not know as to what had happened thereafter. Incident of rape has been supported by Phul Bai (PW-2) who had seen the prosecutrix in unconscious condition and stated that when she came to the house of the appellant along with police, he and the prosecutrix were found in his room. As the prosecutrix was unconscious, after being shifted to the hospital she was examined by the doctor who found number of internal and external injuries on her person. The doctor has also stated that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. This Court does not find any force in the argument of the counsel for the appellant that as the prosecutrix (PW-3) and her sister Phul Bai (PW-2) have not deposed anything regarding rape, the appellant cannot be convicted for the same. Initial part of the story has been supported by the prosecutrix and her sister Phul Bai and thereafter the circumstances make it clear that she was subjected to rape by the accused/appellant. This Court is refraining here to pass any comment on the attitude of the police. It would suffice to say that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded 25 days after the incident, slides were not sent for chemical examination and statements of the parents of the prosecutrix have not been recorded. Offence of rape is further proved by the statement of Phul Bai (PW-2) who has stated that the prosecutrix was walking slowly. It would suffice to say that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded 25 days after the incident, slides were not sent for chemical examination and statements of the parents of the prosecutrix have not been recorded. Offence of rape is further proved by the statement of Phul Bai (PW-2) who has stated that the prosecutrix was walking slowly. There is no evidence on record to show as to why the prosecutrix would falsely implicate the accused/appellant. 9. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below are not faulted with in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is maintained. 10. At this stage counsel for the appellant submits that the incident had taken place about 21 years back and by now the appellant must have attained the age of about 56 years, the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to 8 months that is the period already spent by him in jail. The said submission made by the counsel for the appellant being quite unreasonable is hereby turned down. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed on the appellant is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years from that of 10 years as has been done by the Court below. The appellant is on bail. He be sent to jail forthwith to undergo remaining part of the sentence. 11. Consequently, the appeal succeeds in part to the extent indicated above. Appeal Partly Allowed.