Vinod Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-

with default stipulation

Under Section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-

with default stipulation The sentences are directed to run

concurrently

was capable to perform sexual intercourse.,

Head Constable Ramlakhan (PW8) has stated that he recorded First Information Report (Ex.P3) as narrated by the prosecutrix on 10.2.2001.,

Assistant Sub-Inspector A.R. Sahu (PW9) has stated that he investigated the offence in question. He also recorded statements of witnesses under,

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He seized underwear of the Appellant vide Ex.P13. His statement reveals that he also carried out,

other formalities during the investigation.,

A minute examination of the above evidence makes it clear that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the prosecutrix (PW4) used to go to,

the house of the Appellant for filling water in his house. The prosecutrix has categorically stated that on the date of incident, at the time when she",

reached the house of the Appellant, he was alone at his house. He caught her hand, took her inside the kotha (grainery) of his house and committed",

sexual intercourse with her there. When she tried to shout, he threatened her of life, therefore, she could not shout. She has remained firm during her",

cross-examination. Immediately, on returning her home, she narrated the whole incident to her husband Nand Kumar (PW5), her jethani (sister-in-",

law) Bhagwatiyabai (PW6), her father-in-law Jhagluram (PW1) and her mother-in-law Nonabai (PW2). These 4 witnesses have supported her",

statement. From the statement of Village Kotwar Sunder Das (PW10), it is also clear that he was also told about the incident by Jhagluram (PW1).",

Though the FIR (Ex.P3) was lodged after 4 days of the incident, belated lodging of the FIR has been properly explained by the prosecutrix. There is",

nothing on record to show that there was any previous enmity between the Appellant and the family members of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the",

argument that the Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to a previous enmity is not acceptable. The evidence on record does not,

suggest that the prosecutrix lodged the FIR (Ex.P3) because she was seen with the Appellant in compromised position. Therefore, the argument that",

the prosecutrix was a consenting party is also not acceptable. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, it appears that the Trial Court has",

rightly convicted the Appellant under Sections 376 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the conviction imposed upon the Appellant is",

affirmed. The sentence awarded to the Appellant is the minimum prescribed sentence. No reason has been assigned on behalf of the Appellant to,

award sentence less than the minimum prescribed sentence awarded to the Appellant. Therefore, the sentence part is also affirmed.",

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.",

It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the Trial Court immediately or he shall,

be taken into custody for undergoing the remaining part of his sentence, if any.",

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,