1 2025:CGHC:25891 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 666 of 2008 Barat Ram Kon, aged about 41 years, R/o village-Tamtora, Thana-Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through-Station House Officer, Police Station- Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 19.06.2025. 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 376 of IPC R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 fine to undergo additional R.I. for 06 months. U/S 324 of IPC R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 06 months. (Both the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.) 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.01.2007, the prosecutrix was residing with her parents in villlage Tendua and her grandfather namely Narsingh Yadav is residing in village Tamtora. On 29.01.2007, she along with her brother namely Kamal Singh came to village Tamtora from Tendua at her grandather’s house to see fair at village Kalagideepa. On 30.01.2007 at about 8 pm the prosecutrix/victim went to fair along with Vrindawati Kond (PW/13) and there being no rush at the fair, she spent her time well at fair and then she returned from there at 9 pm to said Vrindawati’s house. The accused/appellant Barat Ram was at home under the influence of liquor and with the help of his wife Vrindawati forcefully administered liquor to the prosecutrix/victim and the appelalnt even went to the extent by sitting on her top and pressing her mouth and then the accused/appellant removed the clothes of the victim one by one and threw her on floor and started doing wrong things with her and as she started screaming, the accused/appellant threatened her to life and he beaten her with his fists and pushed her to the wall and he bitten her cheeks, as the victim was subjected to cruelty, she became unconscious and after gaining her consciousness, she narrated about the entire incident to her parents, grandfather and uncle that the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. 3 3. Thereafter, the prosecutrix/victim reported the matter to the police station Sarangarh vide Ex. P/07 on 01.08.2007 and Dr. Meena Patel (PW/02) had examined the victim and gave medical examination report vide Ex. P/01. During investigation, the Investigating Officer J.R. Chauhan (PW/14) had seized one Dhoti (loincloth) from the appellant/accused as per seizure memo vide Ex. P/10 and clothes of the prosecutrix were seized from her as per seizure memo vide Ex. P/04. 4. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the acccused/appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarangarh and the case was committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh (C.G.) against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 324 of IPC and the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant of Section 506 of IPC as it was not proved, but convicted him under Sections 376 & 324 of IPC to which the appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused person/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. However, the appellant/accused person has adduced only 01 witness in his defence. 6. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and 4 sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal preferred by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and not committed any offence. The learned trial Court committed grave error in law in taking cognizance of the case against the appellant and as such the conviction is bad-in-law. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the story developed by the prosecutrix is most improbable inasmuch as the prosecutrix herself stated that in the house, where allegedly offence was committed, two son and wife of the accused were already present. More so, F.I.R. had not been duly proved and other prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. There are material contradictions and omisssions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and gave wrong finding. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. 8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the accused/appellant, as such this judgment is well merited, warranting no interference by this Court. 9. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 5 10. It is clear from record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 376, 506 and 324 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376 and 324 of IPC. 11. Prosecutrix/victim (PW-07) in her examination-in-chief that on the date of incident, she went to fetch the water by handpump and at that time, the wife of the accused/appellant asked me to come with her to village Kalagideepa for witnessing Ashwamedha Yagya and the prosecutrix refused her, then in the evening when the prosecutrix/victim was cleaning utensils in her home where her family members were present, the wife of the accused/appellant came and again asked the prosecutrix to come with her to village Kalagideepa, despite the prosecutrix’s refusal she did not pay any heed to prosecutrix’s will and kept on forcing her. On repeated requests of the appellant’s wife, the prosecutrix/victim agreed and went with her at night to village Kalagideepa to witness Ashwamedha Yagya and then the victim herself stated that first she went to the house of appellant’s wife and then to see the fair. The prosecutrix along with appellant’s wife stayed in the fair for hardly five minutes and then the appellant’s wife insisted the victim to come to her house in village Tamtora. As the prosecutrix reached the door of appellant’s wife she requested her that she want to go back to her village, but the appellant’s wife forcefully took inside her house, where already the appellant and his two children were present. The appellant was under the influence of liquor and told the prosecutrix to have liquor, upon her refusal he along with his wife forcefully 6 administered liquor to the prosecutrix/victim and the appellant even went to the extent by sitting on her top and pressing her mouth and then the accused removed the clothes of the victim one by one and threw her on floor and started doing wrong things with her and as she started screaming, the accused/appellant threatened her to life and he beaten her with his fists and pushed her to the wall and he bitten her cheeks, as the victim was subjected to cruelty, she became unconscious. On the next day, the prosecutrix/victim found herself in the hospital and after gaining her consciousness she narrated the entire incident to her parents, grandfather and uncle that the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and on the next day, she lodged F.I.R against the appellant vide Ex. P/07. Other witnesses namely (PW/01) Tayari Ram, (PW/03) B.P. Sai, (PW/04) Miniketan Patel, (PW/05) Raju, (PW/08) Hiralal, (PW/09) Makharmati, (PW/12) Dhanwati Bai & (PW/13) Brindavati have supported the statement of the prosecutrix. 12. Doctor Mona Patel (PW/02) examined the prosecutrix and finds that condition of the prosecutrix was very serious and he found multiple abrasions on her face and back of the hand and he also found injuries on her private part and opined vide his report Ex. P/01 that forcible sexual intercourse was committed upon the prosecutrix. Doctor B.P. Sai (PW/03) also examined the prosecutrix and found 11 injuries on the body of the prosecutrix and gave his report vide Exs. P/02 & P/03. The prosecutrix has remained firm in her cross-examination and her statement is supported by the medical evidence. 7 13. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly convicted the appellant under Section 376 of IPC. As such, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are well merited and based upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. This Court does not find any infirmity and illegality warranting interference. 14. Ex consequenti, the appeal is without any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. As the accused/appellant is reported to have been released from jail after completion of the entire sentence, there is no need to pass any order regarding his arrest, surrender etc. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE U.K. Raju