Rohit Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

@ NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR '

CRA No. 933 of 2008 o Rohit Kumar s/o.

Banuram @ Puniram Nishad, aged about years, r/o.

Adsena, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (CG).

---- Appellant

Versus

o State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (CG).

---- Respondent For Appellant :

Ms. Ashmiti Shrivastava, Advocate appears as Amicus Curiae For respondent/State :

Mr. Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Judgment on Board 14-1 2-201 8 1.

This appeal preferred againstthe judgment conviction and order of sentence dated 30-8-2007 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur, District Raipur (CG) in, Sessions Trial No. 130 of 2007 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for commission of offence '

under Sections (1) & Part ll IPC sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,00/- and RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,00/- with default stipulations;

On other hahd, learned counsel State 5.

supporting the impugned judgment would submit that unding of the trial Court is based on proper marshalling of the evidence and the same is not liable to be interfered while invoking the jurisdiction of the appeal.

6.

l heard learned counsel parties perused record court below in which impugned judgment is passed.

7.

Prosecutrix (PW/1) deposed that she was all alone in her house on the date of incident from where the appellant called her but she denied. Thereafter, appellant came to her house, dragged her and took her to his house. She further deposed that the appellant made her lay on the surface, undressed her thereafter undressed himself committed intercourse by inserting his penis into her vagina and thereafter threatened her to kill. She informed about the incident her parents who came latter in evening.

Version this witness supported by version PW/2 Mayaram who father prosecutrix and PW/3 Seetabai, who is mother of the prosecutrix,'PW/4 Bhangteenj and PW/5 Kumari Bai, PW/T Shyam Sunder Chowhan and PW/8 Tejram Pal. All the witnesses have deposed before the

@ trial Court that incident informed them thereafter the matter was reported. Version of the prosecutrix supported by version Dr.

S.R.

Banjare (PW/10) who examined appellant found him'

capable intercourse.

Again it is supported by FIR (Ex.P/1) which lodged after two days of the incident i.e., on 11-4-2007 in which name of the appellant is clearly mentioned as culprit and his act of .rape and threatening is also mentioned. All the witnesses subjected searching crossexamination but nothing could elicited in favour defence.

.

The defence appellant merely denial which is merit-less.

8.

The statement prosecutrix quite natural, inspires confidence and merits acceptance.

In the traditional non-permissive bounds of society of India, no girl or woman of self respect and dignity would depose falsely implicating somebody ravishing her chastity by sacrificing jeopardizing her future prospect.

Evidence of the prosecutrix to be followed at par with an injured witness and When her evidence inspiring confidence, corroboration necessary,.

9.

it is true that there is delay of two days in lodging the report at Police Station.

Where report rape lodged many questions would obviously crop up

consideration before one finally decides to lodge the FIR. it difficult appreciate plight of victim who has criminaliy assaulted in such a manner. Obviously prosecutrix must also gone through great turmoil only after giving it a serious thought, must have decided to lodge the FIR.

Precisely this appears therreasons little delayed FIR.

The delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case involving other offences.

There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the Police Station to lodge a complaint.

In a tradition bound society prevalent in lndia, more particularly, ruralareas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR.

10.

After assessing the evidence, this court has no reason to say that the appellant has been falsely implicated. There is no reason disbelieve the evidence of prosecutrix and other witnesses, therefore, this court has reason substitute the contrary finding.

Offence of rape is pUnishable'

under Section 376(1) of IPC and offence of threatening to kill is punishable under Section 506 Part ll of IPC for which the trial Court has convicted the appellant and same is hereby affirmed.

11.

Heard on the point of sentence.

The trial Court awarded RI for seven years for offence of rape under Section 376 (1) of IPC and RI for one year offence of threatening to kill under Section 506 Part ll of IPC which cannot termed as harsh or unreasonable or disproportionate.

Sentence part also not liable interfered with.

12.

Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

As per report of the jail authorities, the appellant has suffered full jail term and has released from jail, therefore, further order for his'

V arrest etc., is required.

(Ram Prasanna Sharmaj udge