1 CRA No. 568 of 2020 2025:CGHC:31631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 568 of 2020 1 - Jamuna Ram S/o Somra Ram Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bhudkela, Police Station And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Jashpur , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 09/07/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/02/2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 29/2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jashpur (C.G.), whereby the SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.10 18:30:29 +0530 2 CRA No. 568 of 2020 appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation. U/s 366 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation. U/s 376(1) of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.01.2010, the prosecutrix/ victim came to Jashpur from her village with her younger sister for enjoying in the fair thereafter, she went to one Sunil Ram's house in village Manora. After staying at Sunil Ram's house at night, on 15.01.2010, the victim’s sister went to her village by car at 8.00 am. Thereafter the victim was also waiting for the bus going to Kunkuri and was standing near the medical shop near the bus stand where the accused Jamuna Ram came there and he gestured from a distance, threw a stone towards the victim. The prosecutrix saw it. The accused greeted the prosecutrix and asked her to come with him. Thereafter the victim accompanied the accused till Bazardand and when she refused to go with him, he said that he is taking her to his house by riding her on his cycle. The accused told the victim that he knows her brother and both of them work in Rajshree Hotel, so they are going to have food. When the victim told that they have crossed Rajshree Hotel, the accused told her that his house is in village Gamhariya nearby and after reaching Gamhariya, the 3 CRA No. 568 of 2020 accused took the victim to the forest saying that he has a house in Basti. When the victim was refusing to go to the forest, the accused threatened her by saying that she should go quietly or else he will kill her. The accused took the victim at some distance in the forest, left the path and put the cycle towards the bushes, then the victim jumped off the cycle. Thereafter throwing the cycle there itself, the accused ran after the victim, caught hold of her and forcefully threw her on the ground, removed her clothes and raped her. The victim pushed the accused and ran away from there and when she screamed, the accused shut her mouth with his hand. Then the accused threw the victim at another place and pulled out her skirt due to which the pin of the skirt came out and there also the accused raped the victim. The accused dragged the victim to a third place and forcibly opened her skirt and did wrong things to her. When the victim got up after pushing the accused, the accused took away her skirt and panties with him. The victim ran away from the scene of incident and came near a Kadam tree where she met Jagaram and his wife Gunjair Bai who gave a shawl to the victim and brought her to the Kotwar's house. The Kotwar's daughter Kusum Tikka gave a salwar suit to the victim to wear. On the basis of report of the victim, an FIR was registered and investigation was conducted. 3. During investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/08) was prepared. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 4 CRA No. 568 of 2020 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 28/02/2020 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. She submits that merely on the strength of suspicion, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. Moreover, learned counsel further submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and without there being any material and cogent evidence against the appellant, he has been convicted. As such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, it is argued that if the alleged incident had occurred, then considering the fact that the incident had occurred in the year 2010 i.e. prior to the amendment in the IPC, the appellant may be sentenced for lesser punishment. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with 5 CRA No. 568 of 2020 utmost circumspection. 9. The first question for consideration would be that what was the age of the victim at the time of alleged incident? 10. The victim PW/1 in her deposition has stated that on the date of incident, her age is about 13 years however, in her cross-examination she categorically stated that she has no knowledge about her date of birth recorded in her mark sheet. The age of the victim has been mentioned as 30/12/1994 in the mark sheet of Primary School i.e. Ex.P/13, however, no one has proved the same. Hence the age of the victim cannot be defined. 11. Now the next question for consideration is that whether the accused has committed rape upon the victim or not. 12. The victim PW/1 has stated in her statement that the accused was taking her to Rajshree Hotel on his cycle and when he went ahead from there, she asked him where are you taking me, the accused said I am taking you home and took her towards Gamhariya Basti. Thereafter, the accused took her towards Gamhariya hill forest, he threw her down and raped her. 13. Dr. Suchita Minj (PW3), who conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix, stated in his deposition that, her secondary sexual characteristics had developed, hymen membrane was torn. She has admitted that no injury or scratch marks were found on the external parts of the prosecutrix, her back and thighs. 14. Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is well established that 6 CRA No. 568 of 2020 appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the IPC and accordingly, the said conviction is also affirmed by this Court. 15. Coming to the question of sentence, this Court finds that the trial Court has awarded rigorous imprisonment for 10 years to the accused appellant under Section 376(1) of the IPC. The incident occurred on 14-1-2010. Section 376(1) amended on 3-2-2013 by providing the sentence with rigorous imprisonment shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Prior to the said amendment, the sentence was not less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also liable to fine. 16. Considering the evidence in its entirety and looking to the fact that the incident occurred in 2010, this Court is of the view that punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 376(1) of the IPC to the accused appellant is not warranted, and ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to 7 years RI. To that extent, this Court finds it appropriate to modify the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. 18. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this 7 CRA No. 568 of 2020 judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised, with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 19. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar/ Gowri