Back
2012 Supreme(Chh) 307
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Radhe Shyam Sharma, J.
VINOD KUMAR SAHU & ANOTHER - Appellants
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2004
Decided on : 14-12-2012
Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate, for the Appellants.
Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General and Smt. Madhunisha Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondent
The delay in lodging the FIR and the reliability of the prosecutrix's statement were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Rape - Delay in lodging FIR - Sections 341/34, 342/34, 376/511 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix was allegedly raped by the appellants while returning home from school. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the prosecutrix and her family due to a drunken altercation and subsequent threats from the accused's father. The court examined the sufficiency of the prosecutrix's statement and the evidence of delay in lodging the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the delay in lodging the FIR to be satisfactorily explained and considered the evidence of the prosecutrix to be reliable. The court also noted that the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground by itself for discarding the entire prosecution case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in lodging the FIR and the reliability of the prosecutrix's statement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding the prosecution case and that the evidence of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and convicting the appellants under Sections 341/34, 342/34, and 376/511 IPC. The appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fined.
1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 27-2-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh District Korea in Sessions Trial No.440/2002. By the impugned judgment, accused persons/appellants Vinod Kumar Sahu and Hemantchand Sahu have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Sections 341 and 341/34 IPC Simple imprisonment for 1 month
Under Sections 342 and 342/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 months
Under Section 376(2)(g) IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to
pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 5 months
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:
On 26-3-2002, prosecutrix (PW-4) was returning after attending the examination of class 10lh from Podi Bachara High School to her Village Amka. When she reached near the house of appellant Hemantchand Sahu, both the appellants came and caught her bicycle, due to which, prosecutrix (PW-4) fell down. Thereafter, the appellants took prosecutrix (PW-4) in the house of appellant Hemantchand and closed the door. Appellant Vinod Kumar Sahu removed clothes of prosecutrix (PW-4) and removed his clothes also and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her. At that time, appellant Hemantchand Sahu gagged mouth of prosecutrix (PW -4) with a piece of cloth and caught her hands. After some time, mother of appellant Hemantchand Sahu came to the house and opened the door, then the appellants fled from there and prosecutrix (PW-4) came out of the house. Prosecutrix (PW-4) met Kamleshwari (PW-8) on the way and narrated the incident to her. She also narrated the incident to her mother Juganbai (PW-5), Sonmati (PW-7) and Fulbasiya (PW-9). She narrated the incident to her father Sadhuram (PW-6) too. Prosecutrix (PW-4) made written complaint (Ex.P-6) to police. On the basis of Ex.P-6, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-I0) was recorded under Sections 354, 341 and 342 read with Section 34 IPC. Regular First Information Report (Ex.P-12) was recorded in Police Station Khadganva. Prosecutrix (PW-4) also made written complaint to Superintendent of Police, Korea vide EX.P-7. Prosecutrix (PW4) was sent to Community Health Centre, Manendragarh for medical examination vide EX.P-13. Dr. Smt. N. Yadav Rohan (PW-2) examined prosecutrix (PW4) and gave her report (Ex.P-2), in which, she found healed abrasion over the medial aspect of dorsum of right hand, 1 X 0.5cm with dry scab present in the centre of wound. Prosecutrix (PW-4) was sent for X-Ray examination for determination of age. Dr. Ashish Karan (PW-1) took out X-Ray and gave his report (Ex.P-1), in which, he opined that the age of prosecutrix (PW-4) was between 17-19 years.
In further investigation, under garments of prosecutrix (PW-4) were seized vide EX.P-8. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-9. Underwear of appellant Hemantchand Sahu was seized vide EX.P-4. Underwear of appellant Vinod Kumar Sahu was seized vide Ex.P-5. Slide of vaginal swab of prosecutrix (PW4) was seized vide EX.P-15. The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for examination vide Ex.P-16.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Surguja (Ambikapur), from where it was received on transfer by Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, who, conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.
3. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly. In the written complaint (Ex.P-6) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-10), no allegation has made regarding rape. It is a case of false implication. He further argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and unduly attached too much importance to the st
