Sanat Kumar Varma vs State Of Chhattisgarh Through

The appeal is directed against judgment dated 07.3.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (CG) in Session Trial

No.51/2010 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Sections 450 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and RI for 07 years and to pay fine of 1000/- respectively

with default stipulation.

In the present case prosecutrix is PW-6. As per the version of the prosecution, on the date of incident, i.e. 02.6.2010 at about 7.00 pm when the

prosecutrix was alone in her house, the appellant entered into the house, caught hold her and committed rape with her. At that time, husband of the

prosecutrix came there and saw the incident. Thereafter, report was lodged. The matter was investigated and the appellant has been convicted as

mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:

(i) Dilip Verma (PW-7), husband of the prosecutrix, borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from father of the appellant and when father of the appellant

demanded the money back, the prosecutrix lodged false report against him.

(ii) From the evidence of the prosecutrix, it appears that she was the consenting party.

(iii) The trial Court has overlooked the material contradictions and omissions in the version of prosecution witnesses and has not evaluated the entire

evidence properly, therefore, finding of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the finding of the trial Court is based on

proper marshaling of the evidence and the same is not liable to be interfered with while invoking the jurisdiction of the appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Court below.

In the present case date of incident is 02.6.2010 and FIR was lodged on the same day at Police Station Bemetara as per Ex-P/7. In the said FIR

name of the appellant is mentioned as culprit and his act of house trespassing and rape is also mentioned.

Prosecutrix (PW-6) deposed before the trial Court that at the time of the incident, she was alone in her house and was sleeping. She further

deposed that the appellant entered into her house and committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly. In the meantime, her husband returned and tried

to caught the appellant but he fled away from the spot. Version of this witness is unrebutted during cross-examination and it is supported by the

version of her husband Dilip Verma (PW-7) and Pusru Ram (PW- 2). All these witnesses have been subjected to searching cross- examination, but

nothing could be elicited in favour of the defence.

It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that Jarab Singh Verma (PW-1) deposed before the trial Court that husband of the prosecutrix informed

him that his wife is having illicit relation with the appellant, therefore, the prosecutrix is a consenting party. In view of this court, this argument is

without substance. Said Jarab Singh has not stated before the investigating officer while recording his statement under Section 161 CrPC that husband

of the prosecutrix informed as mentioned above. This witness has stated different version in differ stages and looking to his unstable statement, he is

not reliable. Version of the prosecution witnesses is supported by version of Dr. Naresh Kumar Tiwari (PW-5) who found the appellant capable to

perform sexual intercourse.

In the present case there is no delay in lodging the report as the matter is reported in the same day of the incident. There are several matters which

weigh in the minds of the family members before coming to the police station. No girl or woman of self respect and dignity would depose falsely

implicating somebody of ravishing her chastity by sacrificing and jeopardizing her future prospect. Evidence of the prosecutrix to be followed at par

with an injured witness and and taking into totality of the facts, evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, therefore, no corroboration is

necessary.

Statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, therefore, there is nothing on record to say the appellant has been roped in false charges. There

is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix. The trial Court elaborately discussed the entire evidence and recorded finding of conviction.

After reassessing the entire evidence, this Court has no reason to record a contrary finding.

In view of the above, arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant is not sustainable. Act of the appellant falls within mischief under Section 450

and 376(1) IPC for which the trial Court convicted and the same is hereby affirmed. The trial Court has awarded sentence of 07 years for offence

under Section 376(1) IPC which is minimum and less than minimum cannot be awarded. Therefore, sentence part is not liable to be interfered with.

Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. As per the report, the appellant is in jail, therefore, no further

order for his arrest etc. is required.