Ramsundar Pandoo vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Present is an appeal filed by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Session Judge, Jashpur (C.G.) in Session Trial

No. 93/2009 dated 23/02/2012.

Vide the impugned order, the trial court has found the appellant guilty of having committed the offence under Sections 450 & 376 (1) of I.P.C. and

sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 450 and R.I. for 7 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for

the offence under Section 376 (1) of I.P.C. and the court below also imposed default stipulation.

The case of the prosecution against the present appellant is that on 02/11/2005, the present appellant is said to have entered into the house of the

prosecutrix â€" PW/1 and have forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter he is said to have fled away from the scene of

occurrence. The prosecutrix immediately is said to have narrated this incident to her neighbour â€" PW/3 â€" Albena Kujur who along with the

prosecutrix is said to have gone and called upon the husband of the prosecutrix who had gone to the relatives place for some celebration. Lateron, the

present appellant was said to have caught from the village and he was brought to the house of the prosecutrix where in front of everybody, the present

appellant is said to have confessed of committing the offence and had also tendered apology and also agreed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- to the

husband of the prosecutrix.

Lateron, an F.I.R. in this regard was lodged on the next day i.e. on 03/11/2005 on the basis of written report given by the prosecutrix. After

investigation, the matter was put to trial before the Sessions Court, Jashpur where the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 93/2009. The

prosecution in all have examined 8 witnesses and there was no witness examined on behalf of the defence.

The material witnesses in this regard examined by the prosecution are the prosecutrix â€" PW/1, the neighbour - Albena Kujur â€" PW/3 and the

brother-in-law of the prosecutrix â€" Kuldeep Ekka â€" PW/2.

The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that, the present appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and that there is no

offence committed by the present appellant. Neither has the prosecution conclusively proved the fact that it was the present appellant who has

committed the offence.

According to the counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has not identified the appellant by recognizing his face because of the darkness and the

appellant has been identified only by recognizing his voice. He further submits that, an act of sexual intercourse has also not been established

medically since there was no proof found in the report of the Doctor who had examined the prosecutrix. It was further contended that, the reason for

false implication of the present appellant was that, there was an old enmity between the family of the prosecutrix and the family of the present

appellant in as much as the Uncle of the present appellant was the Sarpanch of the same village and who had refused to provide the ration-card

otherwise provided to a family belonging to the B.P.L. group to the family of the prosecutrix. He thus prayed for setting aside of the impugned

judgment of conviction and sought for the acquittal of the present appellant.

The State counsel on the contrary opposing the appeal submits that, the prosecution infact has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts.

According to the State counsel, the statement of the prosecutrix itself is sufficient to establish the offence which has been leveled against the present

appellant. She submits that, the contents of the F.I.R., the statement of the prosecutrix recorded during the investigation and the statement recorded

during trial all are consistent and as such since there is a consistency in the statements of the prosecutrix, there is no reason to disbelief the same. She

further submits that, the statement of the prosecutrix further stands corroborated from the neighbour - an independent witness who was the first

person to whom the prosecutrix is said to have informed in respect of the commission of the offence. She further submits that, from the cross-

examination of PW/3 â€" the neighbour so also the defense has not been able to extract much with which the statement of these independent

witnesses could be doubted in any manner. It was further contended that, the statements of PW/1 and PW/3 further stands corroborated from the

statement of PW/2 â€" the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix who was also informed about the incident on the same night and who have reached the

spot and before whom the present appellant is said to have made an extra judicial confession of committing the offence and had also offered an

amount of Rs.500/- to the prosecutrix and she thus prayed for rejection of the appeal.

Having heard the contention put forth on either side and on perusal of record, except for the admission which the prosecutrix in her cross-

examination has stated of having a strain relationship with the family of the Uncle of the present appellant, there does not appear to be any evidence

which has been led by the defence with which it could be said that the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix is a false complaint and that the present

appellant has been implicated only because of the enmity between the two families.

Moreover, there is not much which has been extracted in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix so also from the independent witness PW/3 so

as to doubt their statement.

Further there does not appear to be any contradiction or omission on part of the case made by the prosecution and the statement which have been

recorded before the Court by the prosecution witness.

As far as the contention of the appellant in respect of no injury having been found, the same may not be of much importance for the reason that,

the prosecutrix was undisputedly a married lady with two childrens.

As far as the identity of the appellant is concerned, the objection raised by the counsel for the appellant is also not sustainable for the reason that

the appellant so also the other witnesses have stated before the trial Court that the present appellant used to visit the house of the prosecutrix along

with her husband as also with the her brother-in-law and therefore the prosecutrix knew the appellant before the incident and he also happens to be

from the same village and therefore there was no reason to doubt the statement of the prosecutrix of recognizing the appellant from his voice.

The statement of PW/1, 2 & 3 further stands corroborated from the evidence of PW/7 - Rajendra who is again a person who had reached the

spot on the same evening and later on the next day had also accompanied the persons to the police station for lodging the F.I.R. From the cross-

examination of this PW/7 also the present appellant has not been able to extract much with which his statement could be doubted.

Given the aforesaid evidence which has come on record, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the counsel for the appellant calling

for an interference with the judgment of conviction and the appeal thus being devoid of merits deserve to be and is accordingly rejected.