Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RADHE SHYAM SHARMA, J.
Mahaveer @ Budga – Appellant
Vs.
State of C.G. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2004
Decided on: 14-9-2012
Delay in lodging the FIR - Sections 376(1) and 450 IPC - The court found the delay in lodging the FIR fatal to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecutrix was deemed unreliable due to her unnatural conduct, and the lack of corroboration led to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, a married woman, alleged that the appellant entered her house, threatened her, and committed sexual intercourse against her will. The delay in lodging the FIR and the evidence of the prosecutrix were contested during the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the delay in lodging the FIR fatal to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecutrix was deemed unreliable due to her unnatural conduct, and the lack of corroboration led to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the delay in lodging the FIR, the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, and the lack of corroboration.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in lodging the FIR and the unreliable nature of the prosecutrix's testimony, coupled with the lack of corroboration, led to the acquittal of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of the charges framed against him and was ordered to be released forthwith.
1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 29-01-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.302/2003. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Mahaveer @ Budga has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 376(1) of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years
and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default
of payment of fine, to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 1 month
Under Section 450 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years
and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default
of payment of fine, to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 1 month
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:
Prosecutrix (PW 1) (in purview of Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code, name of the prosecutrix is not being mentioned) is a married woman. On 26-3-2003, she was sleeping in her house. Her husband Ganeshram Suryawanshi (PW 2) had gone to Naila to earn livelihood and her son Roopnarayan @ Pappu (PW 3), aged about 10 years had gone out of the house for watching television. The appellant entered the house of the prosecutrix (PW 1) and bolted the door from inside. The appellant threatened prosecutrix (PW 1) of life and committed sexual intercourse with her against her-will. Prosecutrix (PW 1) lodged Dehafi Nalishi (Ex.P-8). Regular First Information Report (Ex.P-7) was recorded in Police Station, Champa. The prosecutrix (PW 1) was sent to Government BDM Hospital, Champa for medical examination vide EX.P-11. Dr. Veena Chandra (PW 14) examined the prosecutrix (PW 1) and gave her report vide Ex.P-5, in which, she found that the hymen of the prosecutrix (PW 1) was old ruptured and she was habitual to sexual intercourse. Slide of vaginal swab was also prepared. The appellant was also sent to the Government BDM Hospital, Champa for medical examination vide Ex.P-12. Dr. R.K.Chandra (PW 15) examined the appellant and gave his report vide Ex.P-6, in which, he found that the appellant could perform the act of sexual intercourse.
In further investigation, site map (Ex.P-4) was prepared by Patwari Ramlal Yadav (PW 13).
After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Bilaspur, from where, it was received on transfer by Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, 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), Ganeshram Suryawanshi (PW 2 - husband of the prosecutrix), Roopnarayan @ Pappu (PW 3 - son of the prosecutrix), Dhaniram (PW 4), Jeevanlal (PW 5), Padumlal (PW 6), Premlal (PW 7), Gangaram (PW 8), Sampatibai (PW 9), Krishna Bai (PW 10), Antram Kansari (PW 11), Laxmi Prasad Kenwat (PW 12), Patwari Ramlal Yadav (PW 13), Dr. Veena Chandra (PW 14), Dr. R.K.Chandra (PW 15), ASI V.K. Awasthi (PW 16), Sub Inspector Nakul Singh (PW 17) and Head Constable Sachidanand Gupta (PW 18). The appellant examined Gendram Suryawanshi (DW 1) in his defence.
4. Shri Gurudev Sharan, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the First Information Report (Ex.P-7) was lodged belatedly. He further argued that the trial Court has grossly erred in holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376(1) and 450 IPC. He further argued that the prosecution case is highly improbable. It is impossible for anyone to commit forcible sexual intercourse with a married woman. On close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, possibility of the prosecutrix having being a consenting party cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable and the appellant deserves to be acquitted.
5. On the other hand, Shri Sandeep Yadav, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent, supported the impugned judgment and
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
