High CourtsSingle Bench

Sheo Kumar alias Netaji vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 22 May 2020 · Citation: (2020) 05 CHH CK 0006

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Singh Chandel, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 313
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1081 Of 2002
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 424 words

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay

fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation.

Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay

fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation.

investigated the matter.,

11.

On minute examination of the above evidence, it makes clear that the Prosecutrix was major lady at the time of incident. She was living with her",

mother and children as her husband was in jail. The alleged incident occurred at about 4:30 am. FIR (Ex.P-1) has been lodged immediately after the,

incident at about 7:00 am. The Prosecutrix in her court statement has categorically stated that the Appellant had entered into her house and committed,

forcible sexual intercourse with her. Immediately after the incident, she disclosed this fact to her mother, Girja Bai (PW2). Though Roshni Washnik",

(PW9) has stated that at the time of recording the FIR Jwala Prashad was present with the Prosecutrix, only on this basis it cannot be said that at the",

behest of Jwala Prashad the Prosecutrix hac lodged the false report. The Prosecutrix has categorically denied that Jwala Prashad used to visit her,

house. There is no reliable evidence available on record on the basis of which it can be said that there was enmity between Jwala Prashad and the,

Appellant. Moreover, from the statement of the Prosecutrix as well as her mother, it is established that when they were going to lodge the report, on",

the way the Appellant met them and told them to not lodge the report. This act of the Appellant itself shows that there was involvement of the,

Appellant in the alleged crime. The Appellant had taken alternative defence before the trial Court that the Prosecutrix had encroached his land and,

when he told her to vacant the said land, then she lodged the false and fabricated report. In this regard, no suggestion has been put before the",

Prosecutrix, therefore, this defence as taken by the Appellant, does not help in the present case.",

12.

From the entire evidence available on record, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix. Thus, in my considered view,",

the finding of the trial Court is in accordance with the evidence available on record.,

13.

In the result, I do not find any merit in this case. The appeal is dismissed.",

14.

Records of the court below along with the copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for necessary compliance and action.,