Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Radhe Shyam Sharma, J.
NARSINGRAM – Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2004
Decided On : 25-9-2012
Delay in lodging written complaint and FIR - Sections 452, 376, 506B IPC - The court found that the delay in lodging the written complaint and FIR was not properly explained, which was fatal to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecutrix was not sufficient to hold that the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse, and her unnatural conduct indicated that she was a consenting party. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant were set aside, and he was acquitted of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for offenses under Sections 452, 376, and 506B IPC based on the prosecution's case, which involved the appellant entering the house of the prosecutrix, committing sexual intercourse, and threatening her.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in lodging the written complaint and FIR was not properly explained, and the evidence of the prosecutrix was not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in lodging the written complaint and FIR, the credibility of the prosecutrix's evidence, and whether the appellant was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in lodging the written complaint and FIR was fatal to the case of the prosecution, and the evidence of the prosecutrix, along with her unnatural conduct, indicated that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Sections 452, 376, and 506B IPC were set aside, and he was acquitted of the charges.
1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 10-06-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No. 298/2003. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Narsingram has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 452 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to
pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment
of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for
3 months
Under Section 376 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to
pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for 1 year
Under Section 506-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to
pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for 2 months
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:
On 1-7-2003, at about 1:00 pm, prosecutrix (PW-1) (in purview of Section 228A IPC, name of the prosecutrix is not being mentioned) was alone in her house. Appellant Narsingram entered the house of prosecutrix (PW-1) and showing a knife, threatened her of life. On the point of knife, the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix (PW-1) and threatened her if she will disclose the incident to anyone, he will kill her. The prosecutrix (PW-1) narrated the incident to her husband Prabhuram (PW-2). Prabhuram (PW-2) went to the house of the appellant, asked about the incident and warned him not to come his house again. Thereafter, Prabhuram (PW-2) went to Raipur. The appellant, on Saturday, at about 1:00 a.m., again entered the house of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and committed sexual intercourse with her. The appellant threatened her if she will disclose the incident to her husband, he will kill her. The prosecutrix (PW-1) lodged written complaint (Ex.P-in Police Chowki Bhakhara, on the basis of which, First Information Report (Ex.P-6) was recorded in Police Chowki Bhakhara.
During investigation, spot map (Ex.P-1) was prepared by Assistant Sub-Inspector N.P. Chandrakar (PW-4). Another spot map (Ex.P-17) was prepared by Patwari Kejuram Dhruw (PW-5). Petticoat of prosecutrix (PW-1) was seized vide Ex.P-2. The appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-15 and at his instance, a knife was seized vide Ex.P-3. Underwear of the appellant was also seized vide Ex.P-4. Prosecutrix (PW-1) was sent to Primary Health Centre, Gujara, District Dhamtari for medical examination vide Ex.P-10. Dr. Vandana Vyas (PW-9) examined prosecutrix (PW-1) and gave her report (Ex.P-10A). The appellant was also sent to Primary Health Center, Gujara, District Dhamtari for medical examination Ex.P-10. Dr. Vandana Vyas (PW-9) examined prosecutrix (PW-1) and gave her report (Ex.P-10A). The appellant was also sent to Primary Health Center, Gujara, District Dhamtari for medical examination vide Ex.P-13. Dr. H.C. Godheja (PW-7) examined the appellant and gave his report (Ex.P-17). The seized petticoat and slide of vaginal swab of prosecutrix (PW-1) and the underwear of the appellant were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical examination. Report (Ex.P-20) was received therefrom.
After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Raipur, from where, it was received on transfer by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
3. To hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution examined prosecutrix (PW-1), Prabhuram (PW-2 - husband of the prosecutrix), Rohit Kumar Sahu (PW-3), ASI N.P. Chandrakar (PW-4), Patwari Kejuram Dhruw (PW-5), Narayan Giri (PW-6), Dr. H.C. Godheja (PW-7), Kewarabai (PW-8) and Dr. Vandana Vyas (PW -9). The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.
4. Shri Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant argued that written complaint (Ex.P-5) and
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
